As far as the subject of the article, I disagree with many of Rep. Ryan's proposed solutions but fully agree with him that we need to start discussing these issues. Ignoring the future insolvency of social programs is just as bad for their future as wanting to gut them so the wealthy can get another tax break !

President Obama will continue to be in deep trouble IF the election is based on his RECORD as President on the economy and energy.

Actually, this article is about Ryan's defense of his Medicare voucher plan. But with regard to running on records Obama looks pretty darn good, having pulled our economy out of a death spiral and sustaining slow, but steady job growth from 2008 to now. Romney tries to pretend he was always a businessman and doesn't want to talk about his record as a governor. He did manage one success while in office however - RomneyCare. It's working very well.

A quote from the news: Paul Ryan, Porkman said, is a Redneck.

He wants to screw the voting seniors.

Actually, this article is about Ryan's defense of his medicare voucher plan. Which is why I added #1.2 to my original post.

Thanks for the Democrat line on this election but the lines you need to worry about will be in November. Like I said, it is entirely possible the ugly social conservative wing of the Republican Party will be the iceberg to the R&R campaign Titanic, but don't bank on it. If the current state of the economy plays a role and especially if things get worse or there's a(nother) gas price spike before November the President is in some deep $h*t when it comes to winning a second term!!

Like I said, it is entirely possible the ugly social conservative wing of the Republican Party will be the iceberg to the R&R campaign Titanic, but don't bank on it.

Xray - Is there any other type Republican?

BTW - The president has no control over gas prices, and they have been dropping , not going up...

Obama/Biden 2012

The best hope for Democrats is that Republicans shoot themselves in the foot

xray - !!!LOL!!!

The Repubs have shot themselves in the foot so many times that you can now call them the party of amputees.

I can't wait for the debates. Rand and NitMitt are going to be totally de-balled in front of the whole nation.....This will be great......

O and Joe 2012

Gas prices WERE dropping but that is no longer the case and they are now higher than where they were at the same time last year and will rise even more thanks to this summer's extreme drought and the subsequent rise in corn prices.

The President normally has no DIRECT control over gas prices, but in this case he does in the form of the IDIOTIC corn sourced ethanol mandates that have been in place for FIVE YEARS after being signed off on by Republican President Bush 43. Corn sourced ethanol is an EPIC FAILURE as a biofuel and yet there is no sign the mandates are going to be relaxed, thanks to the power of the corn lobby and the dribble they've left on the chins of elected "representatives" of BOTH parties !! Failing to relax those mandates could easily result in another round of $4 a gallon gas (not that Big Oil cares, but they do need a legitimate excuse to avoid Congressional scrutiny of their generous tax breaks and subsidies) and the economic misery it will bring to an already struggling economy.

We're all screwed regardless / None of the Above 2012

SoNotRight:

Could you, from your perch there in Fantasy Land, please show us any evidence of any growth, slow or otherwise, during Obama's tenure. And please be specific, because all I can find is negative growth in everything from GDP, to employment, to stock prices, to gas prices......oh, and despite what poor, clueless GT thinks, presidential energy policy has one hell of an effect on gasoline prices, which by the way GT baby, have gone up 30 to 40 cents a gallon in the past three weeks! Where the hell have you been?

spider#######

I'll buy your stocks at January 2009 prices and sell them back to you at today's price. Tell you what gimme a million shares of QQQ (power shares) at $27.23 (1/20/09) then I'll let you have them back for today's price of $67.22.

Woo hoo...I'm just a few bucks shy of $40 million profit on the deal! Even Mitt the twit could appreciate that! And, with Ryan's path to prosperity plan, he wouldn't pay a cent in taxes either! Yeah. The rich get richer! Ayn Rand should have been a "job creator" like Mitt, and she wouldn't have had to compromise her principles and take that filthy social security money and that socialist medicare in her golden years.

No Bain/Pain 2012.

Could you, from your perch there in Fantasy Land, please show us any evidence of any growth, slow or otherwise, during Obama's tenure.

Seriously Spider, you don't know there's been job growth? ...and you accuse me of being in fantasy land. I do need to make one correction however, 2008 was election year, I should have said job growth since 2009, when Obama took office. Here's that hard to locate evidence for you, using search terms "2012 job growth since 2008", these are first two returned:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3252

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152417/job-creation-best-september-2008.aspx

@spider-737231 "Could you, from your perch there in Fantasy Land, please show us any evidence of any growth, slow or otherwise, during Obama's tenure"

1) Non-farm payrolls have increased for 21 straight months

2) After falling steadily since 2008 (pre-Obama), home prices are up 7.8% in the past 6 months

3) S&P stock index has risen 9.4% annually

As the Wall Street Journal wrote two weeks ago: "Amid all the gloom and doom about the economy, it may be surprising to learn that five of the seven indicators have improved over the past six months, and the other two are roughly unchanged. None of them are going gangbusters, with the possible exception of housing prices. The broad improvement may be the reason Obama is clinging to a small lead in the polls."

Source: "Seven Economic Indicators That Could Decide the Election," MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal Online, 23 July 2012.

Spider,

That is not a fair statement: Could you, from your perch there in Fantasy Land, please show us any evidence of any growth, slow or otherwise, during Obama's tenure.

It is not Obama that is the problem, it is Bush that is still in control, he made Obama go on many vacations, shoot some hoops, play a lot of golf, and go out to eat at dinner that cost $35,000 a plate. That darn Bush is a sneaky one, just ask Obama! Let us Vote the blame Bush out in 2012!! I can feel the liberal love coming, now lets get back to work!!!

Sure you do, Raul Ryan. Sure, people will believe it's the Dems who want to destroy Medicare, and the Republicans who are the new champions of trust fund programs. Sure. Hahaha, and as soon as he says they welcome the debate, all he can do is lie about the savings from Medicare -- Savings in the president's plan that not only extends Medicare for another eight years, but is used to close the donut hole and other benefits.

Not only does Romney/Ryan keep that same amount in their plan, instead of keeping it in Medicare for seniors, they take out those funds and pass it along in tax cuts for the rich -- They really do steal from Medicare. Romney and Ryan want to repeal ACA, which would cut current Medicare benefits, and they want to cut Medicaid which would cut current benefits such as nursing home care.

This will all come out between now and election, and when seniors realize it's not just about "ending Medicare as we know it" for those under 55, but costs will be shifted to them immediately, one can see why the GOP/TP wants to suppress the vote among seniors.

Already any Republican candidate who can distance his or herself are running away from Paul Ryan as fast as they can.

Even more absurd are all the lies Ryan has been saying about Romneycare. The biggest lie is that premiums have gone up, when in fact these have decreased by 40-50%. The people in MA are happy with their healthcare. In fact, groups that wanted to repeal the mandate couldn't get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

Funny how Romney & Ryan say reducing future Medicare spending by $700 Billion (over 10 years) in Obamacare is "robbery", given the RYAN BUDGET (which Romney has endorsed) INCLUDES THAT SAME, IDENTICAL $700 BILLION in "cuts".

Obamacare uses those $700 Billion in savings to provide health care to 30 million Americans who currently don't have health insurance.

The Ryan/Romney budget uses those SAME $700 Billion in savings to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Which is a better use of the $700 Billion in savings?
-- Provide health insurance for millions of uninsured (then Vote for Obama)
-- Tax Cuts for millionaires (then Vote for Romney)

This is just one example of HOW REPUBLICANS LIE!!!

True ...you nailed it...Obama re invests in healthcare and Ryan pulls the money out for more...............................................Tax breaks for the rich!!!!!!!!!!

Ryan plan kills Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, takes foodstamps from starving children and families and veterans benefits and turns that money also into ....yep.....more tax breaks for the rich. ....Christ ...Greedy Moneymates...when is enough greed enough? Oh yeah, Ryan and Romney want to end their taxes on their capital gains too! Never ending greed from Ryan and Romney.

Obama/Biden and Democrats.......2012 No more greed.

Wonder what kind of whopper lies and right-wing buzz-words will Romney and Ryan resort to, and how many malicious distortions will they say to America and the world, in the televised debates they'll have with President Obama and Vice President Biden?

Americans, unfortunately, are not known to critically think about what they see and hear on the tube. Sound bites, loaded and leading questions, and emotional appeals to our base fears and patriotism are taken at face value and are assumed to be the truth, and the Republican Tea Partiers are propaganda masters at this craft.

The report on wealth for the rich in the last 15 years showed that most money come from "capital gains".

Ryan wants to get rid off it, good bye to majority of tax for the rich.

Obamacare is a tax on everyone.

I want this debate too. I want them to explain how taking Medicare away from me, and my sister, and her husband, and using the money that we've been paying into the system for a lifetime as a bonus for the obscenely wealthy. I know they will try to lie some more. It's the basic republican playbook. They stole it from the Soviet Union, you know: say a lie, and repeat it endlessly until people believe it. They even have their own Soviet style TV and radio news. But the problem is that Americans have other sources, so the right can't totally control the information. Truth gets out, and that has always been the conservatives undoing.

We really don't need the conservatives, you know. Studies show that people that feel safe tend to be liberal. People that feel frightened tend to be conservative. As FDR so aptly put it, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and the GOP stands for fear. This is the home of the brave, so man up, conservatives, and face life and change bravely. If you can't do that, there may be some nice country in South America that will protect you from the shadows.

To quote Paul Krugman: “The Romney and Ryan plans by design don’t force any austerity measures on the wealthy. The austerity is designed for everyone else.”

Romney has gone about the country talking about “free stuff.” You know what “free stuff” really is? It’s TARP to bail out Wall Street and the Banksters. It’s tax cuts for the rich, especially tax breaks on dividends, capital gains (carried interest), and estate taxes – Breaks that only apply to the very rich. Romney is on video promoting “free federal money” in tax credits for businesses.

It’s the great big share of the budget given to the Military Industrial Complex. The defense budget, which includes subsidies to Europe and military bases in Japan, as well as thermo nuclear weapons no longer needed as defense against a Soviet attack. The largest growing public sector is Homeland Security. What a mushrooming monstrosity this has become.

You know what’s NOT “free stuff?” Trust fund entitlement programs that YOU pay into like Social Security and Medicare, or even unemployment insurance that your employer (and you in lower wages) pay premiums for. And what do Teapublicans like Paul Ryan and Romney want to do? Despite the IOU, they want YOU to make the sacrifice and accept cuts to those programs. And not to pay down the deficits, but so the rich can get more tax breaks!

They want YOU to pay for unnecessary wars Bush/Cheney did not pay for, and deregulation of Wall Street that depleted your home equity and 401ks, and possibly loss of your job and the wages and benefits along with that job. If you had to file bankruptcy because you lost health care coverage -- too bad. So the Republicans mismanaged the economy, and for a decade job creation has barely kept pace with population growth, and wages have been stagnant for even longer. It is YOU, the middle class and working poor who are called upon to pay for the mess, and to provide more “free stuff” to the rich.

Fight for Social Security and Medicare, because that's all you have left that isn't controlled by Wall Street and the private sector. Fight for your parents, for yourself, and your children.

@snowball..

"These two silver spoon pretty boys don't have a clue, or a snowballs chance."

Aside from the fact that you assertion is logically incorrect, exactly what is Obama's plan? We're SIXTEEN TRILLION in the hole now. Obama's plan to fix this is? (and, no, "tax the rich" won't cover it either.)

And, no, you cannot have a pony for your birthday, either.

I can't wait for the debate, the truth will come out, and then people will see who is for the people. Romney/Ryan will try and spin it any way they can, but the truth is Obama did not cut 716 billion in cuts to medicare benefits, instead they cut it from insurance companies and provides, for over charging and subsides. Romney is spinning this to protect the insurance companies, they don't have a pray on winning this debate.

Ryan and Romney want to discuss Medicare like a leper wants a three-way mirror.

all I can find is negative growth in everything from GDP, to employment, to stock prices, to gas prices......oh, and despite what poor, clueless GT thinks, presidential energy policy has one hell of an effect on gasoline prices, which by the way GT baby, have gone up 30 to 40 cents a gallon in the past three weeks! Where the hell have you been?

GDP has been positive every quarter since mid 2009

Dow has almost doubled since Obama took office

There has been positive job growth since furst quarter 2010

Although the president has little influence on gas prices, we HAVE reduced consumption.

The best thing about Ryan being on the ticket is that it will bring an end to his political career.

Just like Sarah Palin. Add it up people...the GOP just ain't got it.

Your approach to complex problems speaks volumes on how you will resolve pretty much everything that comes your way.

Ryan's approach to Medicare, which is now Romney's approach as well, is to put protections in place for the federal budget while ignoring the underlying problem. While this approach CAN balance a budget it lets health care costs continue to bankrupt our elderly and everyone else but the rich.

Sooooo....

They take a myopic view aimed at hiding the issue.

They ignore the issue because it does not affect the rich directly.

And they will defend bad ideas to the death.

Just what we need.

Ryan will genocide our seniors so the 1% get tax cuts !!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans don't debate, they dictate.

The basic difference in Medicare reform policies:

Obama/Biden: Save money by forcing providers to become more efficient.

Romney/Ryan: Save money by directly cutting benefits.

It's not us Seniors I'm worried about, It's you, that will follow behind me and your children. The people that are 53-54 I have concerns for also. Even if your own parents are about this age you should be concerned for them.

Truthfully here Romney you need to reel in that Loose Cannon Paul Ryan. For a VP Elect sounds more like he's running for President than you are.

Pigotry: And why would Ryan want to screw seniors? His mom lives in Florida and is on Medicare. The old cliche: "The GOP wants to kill granny". Obamacare took care of killing granny. Considering Ryan is pro-life, I seriously doubt that his view is saving babies from being aborted but he is okay with killing seniors. Really? Does that even make any sense? The American system is broken because of our brain dead incompetent elected elitist officials and someone needs to address it. Good for Ryan.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Who cares what Ryan wants? Someone tell this idiot he's a VP candidate he's irrelevant.

Georgie < I guess you forgot to read the plan the bill will only effect people 54 and under not his mom.

I have to wonder if your styatement means both partys or just someone else's

yosolo....nice sentiment, but what you are saying is exactly what is wrong with this country. You think that just because the words come out of R & R's mouths that it must be true. Fact checking goes both ways...and what bothers me most about Romney is the FACT that he refuses to release his tax returns in order to PROVE that Harry Reid is blowing smoke. If I had nothing to hide, that is exactly what I would do. And....as an intelligent American, I have to make some assumptions based on circumstantial evidence given that I have no real data in front of me. And, circumstantially, R & R are basically shoveling the exact same manure in their campaign as any other office challenger. I've done my homework, and while Obama is not doing a stellar job as President, I believe that he will do a much better job than a guy I simply don't trust. What else do I really need to know than that?

We are living in an artificial economy, stocks are doing good because they where under valuated after the 2009 crash and with some maneuver from the FEDs, the fact is GDP is below of the grow population it means the average income is still in decline, Obama is hurting the poor, more people liven in welfare , more people are loosing their unemployment benefits, price of food id rising, no energy policy, gas price continue raising, unemployment real numbers 14 % , house market doing better not because Obamanomis is just because population growth, we are not doing better , we are living borrowing money Obama add 6 trillions of dollars , we are living with " credit card" , who is going to pay for it. This is irresponsable.

No more of the same, no more Obamanomic.

RR 2012

Ryan would push his mom off a Cliff for his 1% Buddies, this dude is a Phony and a disgrace to America !!!!!!!!!!

Stevefoo -- When in America did it become the accused's position to disprove claims? This is America and the burden on proof is on the accuser not the accused. I find it hard to believe that any one holds a different view from our system of justice.

@redvirginia -- For the left to embrace the fact that WALL STREET is doing better as a positive with its position is hypocrisy at its highest level anyway. The left stood solidly behind OWS and attacked and now they want to embrace. I sure hope the American public awakens from its hypnotic stupor of four years ago and realizes they were lied to.

..........|Owencoffin writes: The best thing about Ryan being on the ticket is that it will bring an end to his political career

No, obviously, according to Wisconsin law, Ryan is allowed to run for re-election to keep his seat in the House, while running for VP at the same time. He will be back unless he LOSES BOTH races. I guess he can still keep his usual 60% winning margin in his house district and safely return to the House when he loses - for sure - the VP race, although I hope he loses both.

Patriotic BaBy American

Ryan would push his mom off a Cliff for his 1% Buddies, this dude is a Phony and a disgrace to America !!!!!!!!!!

Put your pants up, you are running around screaming like Little Chicken.

Factcheck say you all are liyng. People are not stupid MSNBC is not the only source of information.

Enjoy this:

In weekend interviews 38 percent responded favorably to Ryan joining the Republican ticket, up from 23 percent in pre-selection interviews last week. Positive views rose among independents as well as among Republicans, and among women. And Ryan was notably well-received among senior citizens – a group of interest given his plan to reshape Medicare.

Ben....just because a person is a smart thief should not allow them to escape justice. If it were up to you, half the murderers in jail would be free simply because they left no DNA or fingerprint evidence. Sometimes (and yes, even in America), we must use circumstantial evidence to convict. Sometimes there's no body found, but we must use intelligent design and understand that even clever criminals must be punished. Sorry....but I always use my own common sense when reviewing a situation. And, I reiterate from my previous post, if I truly had NOTHING to hide, I would hold a news conference with all my tax returns and expose Harry Reid as a fraud. Election might be over at that point. But...that is not what Mr. Romney is doing....he is doing quite the opposite. That tells me (sorry....circumstantially) that he is either really stupid, or he does not want the public to know something. That is common sense, not a different view of our system of justice.

These two silver spoon pretty boys don't have a clue, or a snowballs chance.

Really? In the last 2 weeks Romney has moved from +2 on the Rasmussen daily tracking to +4 Nationally in terms of likely voters. On the Gallup Registered Voters daily tracking poll he has moved from -2 to +2.

Just in today, Franklin & Marshall (not a stellar Republican Poll by any means) Shows Romney has moved to -5 where polls initially had him anywhere form 8 - 12 points down.

Good luck on your dream!

Polls are already showing that the addition of Ryan is drawing the youth to the Ticket. Obama had 70% of the youth in 2008 and the numbers say Romney is collecting 40% now.

Ryan's plan uses the same 716 billion, he says Obama cuts out of Medicare to make his own Medicare cuts.

So, Romney comes along and doesn't detail his plan, he just says he will repeal Obamacare (cost of 200 billion to the economy), restore the 716 billion, and then doesn't say where he will make reforms.

So Romney's plan, increase the deficit.....period.

I hope this election does lead to a serious debate about Medicare and the budget in general (entitlements and defense). We need to start having open, honest debates about the issues in this country, and stop with the partisan mud slinging.

From the perspective of an independent that voted for Obama in 2008, based on what I've seen the last week, it appears the current Obama approach is to continue the mud-slinging approach, but the Romney team is pivoting towards discussing the issues (still with some mud slinging - but at least they have some substance to their message now). I'm hopeful Obama will change his strategy and also focus on real debates of the issues.

I personally don't care who wins, as long as the person that wins has a realistic plan and has the leadership needed to work with congress (regardless of the party in control) to get real solutions implemented.

Stevefoo -- You are so far off base and how you got this to my view of murderers in jail??? There are not even any dots to connect. You are holding Romney to a false standard. A hypocritical standard and this election it will not hold up. Where does it end???? I heard this. I heard that. That kind of gutter politics must end now. Harry Reid disgraces the position he holds with this country.

How many years would you like to see beyond what is legally required?? What will satisfy you? Does the presumption of such a violation of tax laws fall under the IRS? Are you saying the IRS isn't doing its job -- even under Obama?

What if the IRS says everything is legal and properly filed to code -- would that satisfy you?

he is doing quite the opposite. That tells me (sorry....circumstantially) that he is either really stupid, or he does not want the public to know something. That is common sense, not a different view of our system of justice.

Stevefoo

If we believe in your sense of justice Obama shouldn't be the President Of US , he and Rham Emanuel and J Jackson Jr.shouldbe joining Blagovich in federal prison. But our judicial system do not act without evidence. Like it or not.

redvirginia.....based on what? What have either of these men done that is illegal or are you just making things up?

Ben....you missed the point, actually. I never brought up the criminal justice system....you did. I was simply responding to that. And once more, so that even you will understand it.....If I was running for President, and I had NOTHING to hide, and the opposition was saying something totally untrue about me....and I HAD NOTHING TO HIDE, then I would hold a press conference and shove the proof of that fact up the oppositions nose. I don't care if I legally had to show it or not....I would do it just to make the opposition look like idiots...again, IF I HAD NOTHING TO HIDE! What part about that are you just not getting????

stevef00

redvirginia.....based on what? What have either of these men done that is illegal or are you just making things up?

Stevefoo

Thank you. You prove my point.

The Republicans will get creamed in the debates. Why? Swiftboating level "facts" abhor daylight and both Biden and Obama are both smarter on their feet than either of their opponents. Also, the Republican spin may work with some in the TV ads, but it won't wash in the debates at all.

redvirginia....HOW? I don't even know what you are talking about...of course, I think that makes two of us....

Things could have been a whole lot worse for President Obama. When FDR took over from Hoover, the national unemployment rate was 20%, and grew to 25% before gradually declining. When President Obama took over from GW, we were losing 600,000 jobs per month, GDP was down by over 6% in a single quarter (4th quarter, 2008), the Dow was down to the below 8000-range, and our home prices and retirement plans had dropped by 1/3rd in value on average, even though banks all over the world had been the beneficiary of over $12 trillion worth of no-interest loans (that you and I paid to subsidize) during the 4th quarter of 2008. So if President Obama and the Democrats hadn't done a whole lot of things right, we could be in much worse shape right now too.

Remember all the catcalls from the Right when the President wanted to bail-out GM and Chrysler? Doing so saved over two million jobs, and quite likely prevented a near-total economic collapse in the southern Great Lakes region. Yes, some of the stimulus was siphoned-off to fund questionable projects, but the lion's share of it was used to fund highway and other infrastructure maintenance projects that had been neglected by the previous administration, and did "create" some badly needed employment too, like FDR created through all of his Great Depression-era public works projects too. The fact was that much of our national highway system was in dire need of repair, and quite a few bridges will not be falling down in the next 10 or 20 years thanks to how the Democrats chose to spend the stimulus funds.

If President Obama and the Democrats "stole" $716 billion from the medical and health insurance industries in order to help control patient costs that were on an out-of-control price surge since Bill Clinton left office, I say more power to him. My own health insurance cost was only up almost triple during GW's 8 years in office, if you don't count my additional out-of-pocket costs that included all of the new copays and that $1500 annual deductible, nor include all of the benefit reductions either. The fact is when all of my new healthcare costs are included between 2001 and 2009, my total cost for healthcare was up by close to 700% over that time frame, but since then has only risen by another 15%, which I attribute to the Democrats getting control over health care costs.

Yes, there needs to be a debate over the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and my guess is that most of us would prefer some combination of small tax increases, an increase in the income ceiling subject to Social Security taxation, and means-testing upper-echelon retirement income earners for whom Social Security and Medicare amount to a small drop in their supplemental income, who A, currently don't contribute any taxes on more than $106,800 of their total income, and B, really don't need to participate in either program either. Should Mitt Romney get Social Security and Medicare when he has offshored a huge percentage of his income to shield it from income taxation?

Yes, I say let's have this debate that Paul Ryan so badly wants, right after the hubbub dies down after Mitt Romney actually finishes releasing ALL of his tax returns for the last two years, including the IRS statement on his offshore investment holdings, which so far has NOT been released to public scrutiny for ANY tax year, as is required by Federal Election law. Is Mitt Romney actually even legally running for President might be a question to answer before we debate any of the really hard questions like the ongoing future of Social Security and Medicare.

@stevefoo

You stated: " if I truly had NOTHING to hide, I would hold a news conference with all my tax returns and expose Harry Reid as a fraud."

Similarly, if there was nothing to hide then Obama took an awful lot of time and bashing in the media before finally releasing a Birth Certificate. Seems like it was a strategy to let the other side jump in with both feet on the "birther bandwagon" then pull the rug out.....Romney might be doing the same thing.

However, there are still questions tossed around about Obama's college records and they don't appear to be forthcoming. To apply your logic, "If there is nothing to hide, why not produce the documents"?

It comes down to presumption of innocence, and burden of proof. The "birthers" and college question crowd can't prove (or strongly suggest)any wrong doing by Obama, therefore he took his time with the Birth Certificate while gathering free press and is still keeping the college records sealed.

The "show us your tax returns" group and harry Reid can't show proof that Romney did evade taxes (or something shifty), therefore he is sucking up the free press and keeping it to two years.

I don't disagree with your premise though.....if I was accused of a crime and could prove beyond a doubt that I was innocent, I wouldn't hesitate to do so just to shut up the accusers and put the issue to rest. There lies the difference between politicians and normal people.

Fedup....you are right, and I agree that it works both ways. I think Obama took way too long to show his birth certificate. By the time he actually got around to it, the birther idiots then claimed it was a fake. The college stuff I really don't care much about. I don't care if he got good grades in college or not....it's really irrelevant to me, but I do agree with your point. The thing that I despise most about these candidates is that they play to the most ignorant portion of their voting base. They just don't realize that not all of us are that stupid.....just apparently enough.

interesting that Ryan..in an interview on Fox of all places..side steped questions on his own cuts to medicare and medicaid. Should be interesting debates if, and only if....direct questions are actually asked until truthfully answered by both Romney and Ryan,. So far with Romney, that has not happened. I myself , want to know just what his ideas are now..not after this guy full of his own secrets gets elected.

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. It is only guaranteed to work on liberals.

Is Paul Ryan even aware that we have been paying iinto Medicare all our working lives so that when we retire we will have all the health care we need? NOW Ryan just wants to keep all our money we've already paid into our health insurance so he can give it to the Rich in tax cuts! Is he freaking crazy!?!

Ryan wants to replace OUR lifetime of paying for Medicare, with a crummy voucher for 10% so we can go buy MORE insurance when we turn 65 years old! How good of an insurance policy can you buy when your 65 years old, and using a stupid 50 cent voucher signed by Paul Ryan!

Mr. Ryan, we have already purchased our insurance, and no person in their right mind would give that away so that YOU can give us 50 cent voucher, and then give the rest of our money to the rich!!!

Obama/Biden 2012

Does anyone disagree that ....

If we fail to reform Medicare we will destroy Medicare as we know it.

So if changing it also "destroys Medicare as we know it," then why are we trying to save it?

I think it is the morally correct thing to do to both save it AND to reform it.

Obama@!$%#tards can obfuscate all they want, but Medicare dies if we choose to not debate the issue.

Thats who you are voting for. A man who would rather let Medicare die than risk a political debate that would hurt his re-election.

What a @!$%#tard Obama is. Talk about putting "Ya'll seniors back in chains."

American Girl,

Are you even aware that even though we all have been paying into Medicare we have not had it properly funded since its inception?

Failing to understand that little problem is the problem. Politicians kicked this can down the road under Johnson and have continued to do so ever since. Its the third rail of politics and no one wants to touch it.

Well Ryan is willing to do what needs to be done. That makes him a national hero in my eyes.

We HAVE to be realistic about how much we are actually paying in to the system. In the interest of putting some perspective in this, I’ve done some hard (unpaid) work:

Let’s assume a worker, 54 years old today, has worked since the age of 16, and he will work until the age of 65, for a total of 49 years.

Born in 1958, he started working in 1974, mowing lawns for a landscaping company, paid minimum wage, which was $2/hour. He worked after school and one weekends during the summer for a total of 20 hours a week, and after this initial job he continued working 20 hours a week at minimum wage (which rose to 2.10/ hour in 1975) in various jobs until he finished high school at the age of 18. He worked 20 hours a week for 52 weeks at $2 per hour, earning $2080. He worked 20 hours a week for 52 weeks at $2.10 per hour, earning $2184. He earned a total of $4264 for those two years. He and his employers paid into medicare 2.9% or $123.66.

In 1976 he went to college and continued working part-time but for 30 hours a week, still earning minimum wage, which had by then risen to $2.30 per hour. He earned this for his first year, then his wages increased to 25 cents more than minimum wage every year while he finished his four year degree in engineering. In 1977 he earned $2.55 per hour. In 1978 he earned $2.90 per hour. In 1979 he earned $3.15 per hour. In 1976 he earned $3588. In 1977 he earned $3978. In 1978 he earned $4524. In 1979 he earned $4914. He earned a total of $17004 during those four years. He and his employer paid into medicare 2.9% or $493.12.

In 1980 he got an entry level position at a firm with a starting salary of $21,000 a year. In 1985 he received a raise, earning $30,000 a year. In 1989 he received another raise, earning $41,000 a year. In 1994 he received another raise earning $58,000 a year. In 1998 he received a raise, earning $70,000 a year. In 2001 he received a raise, earning $80,000 a year. In 2004 he received a raise, earning $86,000 a year. In 2007 he received a raise, earning $91,000 a year. In 2010, after 30 years with the firm, he received a raise, earning $100,000 a year. In 2012, at the age of 54, he received another raise earning $106,000. Next year he will be made President of the firm and he will earn $150,000 a year every year until he retires at the age of 65 (I sincerely hope I haven’t done any of my math wrong).

1980-1984 five years at 21000, total $105,000, =$3045 paid to medicare

1985-1988 four years at 30000, total $120,000, =$3480 paid to medicare

1989-1993 five years at 41000, total $205,000, =$5945 paid to medicare

1994-1997 four years at 58000, total $232,000, =$6728 paid to medicare

1998-2000 three years at 70000, total $210,000, =$6090 paid to medicare

2001-2003 three years at 80000, total $240,000, =$6960 paid to medicare

2004-2006 three years at 86000, total $258,000, =$7482 paid to medicare

2007-2009 three years 91000, total $273,000, =$7917 paid to medicare

2010-2011 two years 100000, total $200,000, =$5800 paid to medicare

2012 one year 106000, total $106,000, =$3074 paid to medicare

2013-2023 eleven years at 150000, total $1,650,000, =$47,850 paid to medicare.

In 2023 when he retires at the age of 65, he will begin to use the medicare system. Over the lifetime of his work, he will have contributed only $104,987.78. At 65 he is very healthy and will only use a moderate amount of care, which will increase as he ages until he dies at the age of 82 after using medicare for 17 years.

In 2005, medicare paid roughly half of a person’s medical expenses. Total expenses were on average $14,471, of which medicare paid $7,064 per person annually. If we could somehow stabilize the system and assure that the cost of health care maintained its 2005 rate (HA! HA!), Medicare would spend $120,088 on our subject over the remainder of his life, and he would need at least that much more in other insurance coverage and savings in order to pay for what medicare does not cover, because medicare does not cover everything in the first place and never has.

Note that this subject has had much better than average success in life, achieving the top status in his field and maintaining top salary for over a decade. The majority of the nation will earn much less than that, with the national median household income being only $51,00. If a person earned a stable $51000 a year every year for 49 years that our subject worked, he would earn $2,499,000 over his working lifetime and contribute only $72,471 to medicare, yet he will take from medicare the same $120,000 or more in his retirement. In 2010, payroll contributions covered roughly only 40% of costs in medicare parts A, B and D, or only 85% of part A. The rest comes from general revenue, beneficiary premiums (part of the cost the individual has to be able to cover in their old age), and very small percents from states, taxation on social security benefits, and interest (interest covers only 4% of costs, but how can we earn interest when there’s no principle).

The fact of the matter is we are not paying into the system as much as we take out and there are not enough workers earning wages that are high enough to cover the gap. Until we control the cost of the care itself, we will not be able to bring this under control.

Ryan’s idea of giving people vouchers at $15,000 a year to purchase private insurance is not that bad an idea. It takes the money out of the government’s hands. A private insurance company is going to have better oversight and come down harder on fraud, waste and abuse within the system, which has run rampant under government control. It puts more of the truly ill into the general insurance pool system so that private insurance companies work harder to control costs of the most expensive and necessary services. The government having primary control of the end of life insurance system was meant to control those costs, but instead there has been a meteoric rise in the cost of care, going from $160 a year costs per person on average in the 1960s to over $8,000 a year today per person on average—remembering that the older, sicker population is utilizing care at the rate of more than $14,000 a year (I think it’s around $16,500 a year right now); in 2009, half of medical care costs were to cover only 5% of the population—the sickest, but Medicare did not cover all of the sickest, which leaves so many in the general population without coverage or with waning coverage. It also makes the consumer more aware of the value of their care, personally. We have this tendency to believe we’ve “paid in all these years and should get back what we’ve given”—well, we do get back what we’ve given and then some, and because we’re not in control of it, we don’t necessarily pay attention to what we’re spending and how. By removing the vast majority of the chronically ill from the private insurance system (yes, most elderly have supplemental insurance, but it is still a different system altogether, and there is a guaranteed payer of half the costs in the government through medicare), we actually caused the private insurance industry to unrealistically charge healthier patients for much more care than what they were actually receiving, which meant that the cost of ordinary care could rise arbitrarily, because there was more money available to spend through insurance on those healthy patients as people wanted more value for their dollar, this being care for which they would normally have paid for themselves, while at the same time punishing people who got truly ill but could not qualify for medicare because their expenses were so much greater than the average of those paying in to the pool. Health insurance itself lost its purpose with the shift to medicare as a primary provider for elderly patients as the majority of the chronically ill.

The thing is, we don’t have many choices for really fixing things. The healthcare industry does not want to go to universal care because they don’t want to become government employees—they like their increasing wages as capitalists too much and the leeway they have not being constantly under someone’s thumb. We need more doctors already (another problem—self-created by caps on number of med students—which contributes to rising costs because it assures increased demand), but if we were to go to universal care, caps on wages would be instituted, which might make the more intellectual and better suited to doctoring individuals shy away from a the medical field—we need more doctors, but not a dumbing down of the field. Furthermore, making our doctors and nurses essentially government employees means they will strike when they don’t like something (which is immoral and unethical for someone in the medical profession, as you are gambling with the lives of people you are meant to protect, but I digress). So universal care has some downsides.

If we do not move the truly ill back into the general medical insurance population so that the control of costs becomes even, then medicare should be expanded to cover everyone with chronic illness, no matter their age or income, 100%. Medicare taxes should be raised to 6.5%. More doctors should be hired, with requirements for service as primary care physicians as part of the training, and at the same time we should pay for their college so that they don’t start with $200K in debt (this is a trade for time served as primary care when they would all prefer to be cardiac specialists) (by the way, this should be done whether or not we change medicare to a voucher for private insurance program). Private insurance should not be provided by employers any longer and should only cover non-chronic illnesses not covered by medicare, so that private insurance would become a luxury item in which everyone is pooled as individuals, rather than a necessity where some people get better rates than others. By doing this, medicare has 100% of control over the cost of chronic care and can bring cost of care into check across the nation (this is dangerous because each state has an independent economy, which is a good reason for states rights to come into play, though I know liberals don’t like to think about states rights). In other words, chronic care becomes completely universal across the nation, and ordinary care remains capitalist—the two become totally separate, instead of intermixing only partially, which is the true source of the catastrophic rise since the advent of medicare, in my humble opinion.

Ryan’s plan, in essence, would be to put all of the chronic illnesses into one basket on the capitalist side of things, through private insurance, in order to control costs by actual supply and demand, where everyone is cost-sharing the cost of the truly ill in one system that can still fluctuate based on needs and doesn’t open the door to striking doctors and nurses.

One way or another, until we are willing to understand that most of us really do not pay very much in to the medicare system, we can’t really have an honest conversation about what needs to happen. We have to have a realistic understanding of our own contribution and how much we can expect to take from the system. We don’t pay very much in. We get way more out than we contribute. And we are all expected to pay at least half our keep even when we’re on medicare, because it already doesn’t cover 100%. Keep in mind that’s all on average. A perfectly healthy person might pay more into the system than they ever take out before they die peacefully in their sleep, but in this day and age, that doesn’t happen too often. More often, the terribly ill take their fair share and then the fair shares of six others. I wonder how many of us have actually sat down to do the math on how much we’ve individually contributed. There are some people (like me, a writer and at-home parent) who have paid in hardly anything (I haven’t worked for pay in almost 16 years). What do we say to people like that (like me) when they talk about their fair share?

Sources:

Minimum wage chart www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

Medicare payments averages 2009 www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-04-2.pdf

Engineering salaries historical progressive www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9505/beazley-9505.html

Engineering salaries 2012 www.starktalent.com/2011/12/engineering-salary-trends-for-2012/

PS If there are errors, I do apologize. What more do you want for two hours unpaid labor??

Wow....this is a really difficult choice....NOT.

Choosing between a plan giving those of us paying into FICA all of our working careers giving us vouchers for medical coverage. So Insurance companies can seek bigger coporate tax deductions, as payees of the Government, as our middle class taxes go up to offset giving millionaires/billionaires greater tax cuts.

This isn comparison to a different plan keeping medicare as it is without a voucher system requiring millionaires/billionaires to pay at previous tax levels enacted under Bill Clinton with Obama's ACA now strengthening Medicare after Ryan/Bush defunded the donut hole perscription coverage of $17.6 billion for seniors in 2003 within Medicare Advantage.

This is a real easy choice unless you're a selfish pig headed millionaire/billionaire (excluding ethical-moral millionaires/billionaires).........

I'm dying to hear Ryan's debate against the President on this issue. He's going to lose the debate..........I can't wait.

Obam/Biden 2012

What debate? All the Democrats have to do is play back what the Ryan Romney a holes have been saying live on TV for all of us to see. There is no debate.

lu-1328381-6558772 -

Well done, but as the libs and Barbie like to say "math is hard!"

Maybe I missed the part in the huge post on the Medicare premiums that seniors pay as well.. it is means tested. so in addition to employee/employer input up front during employed years - you are at enrollment in medicare paying premiums -- for me alone I think this will be greater than $230 today if I was 65 today. likely this will be higher in 9 years when I am 65

So senior do pay other out of pocket expenses in Medicare

that siad I think the 2.9% rate needs to be increased and they need to have reasonable premiums that have the means testing

I still do not beleive there would a functioning market from the private insurance sectore for the poor and elderly

The lack of a functioning private insurance market for such a "risky expensive pool" is one of the reason Medicare and Medicaid came to be -- no avoidable insurance for elderly after their "employed younger years"

Just do not think it will work and lots of elderly would be truly uninsured and doing the full up the only choice is the ER scene

When in America did it become the accused's position to disprove claims?

Ever heard of the American justice system?

If the claims made are serious enough, criminal charges could follow. The American people have a right to know EVERYTHING about the man running for the highest office in our land. We the people are H.R.

Romney and his wife both have admitted publicly that there are things in their returns that opponents could attack them on. Like a good investigator doing their job, Democrats want to know what is so heinously hidden to cause so much fear and dread.

It is a fair question and the onus is on Romney to prove there is nothing to hide. Especially given Romney's history of lying, misleading, and flip-flopping.

lu-1328381-6558772:

Almost perfect math, except that Ryan is only proposing giving seniors a $6000 voucher to purchase private insurance with, not a $15,000 voucher as you claimed in your piece. That $6000 voucher will only amount to $500/month, or about $250/month less than what I pay now between my insurance premium, my copays, and my annual deductible. If Obamacare is revoked and we go back to those 15-20% annual costs increases that we all saw the entire time that GW was in office, by 2022, that $500/month will only pay for 1/3rd of my healthcare costs. Imagine that, having to pay 58% of your Social Security check in order to afford Medicare at the age of 65, just to make some lucky health insurance company rich, and if we continue that rate of cost increase another 10 years, in 2032, your Social Security check will only pay for 56% of your total Medicare costs. If you then live to 85, it will cost close to $10K per month to afford Medicare by then, and the average Social Security check is only $1500/month!!!

So I think that the Paul Ryan/Mitt Romney plan will work great in fleecing 98% of Americans out of their life savings, and then dumping them onto the streets destitute by the time that most are in their 80s, as your piece fails to take into account those runaway healthcare cost increases as well as the current pace of wage and Social Security inflation-based income growth.

Wonder what's in those Romney Income tax returns, that Mrs Romney, keeps saying it will have ammunition for 'them' to use against the Romneys. What is the ammunition? as Lawrence O'Donnell says a smoking gun has ammunition, things that make one go, h-m-m-m.

Ryan has a plan. It's called coupons. Obama has a plan. It's called medicare.

There actually is a debate to be had over the relative merits of a system where you are guaranteed benefits, but have a payer that negotiates prices with providers (aka medicare), vs. a system where the payer provides fixed funding and leaves you to negotiate benefits with providers (aka the Ryan plan), but Ryan doesn't want to have that debate. No, instead he's following Romney's lead, and Romney's plan is always the same: attack Obama and then dodge any and all questions about Romney's own policies.

Reporter: What is Governor Romney's medicare plan?

Romney/Ryan: Did you know that Obama cut $700 billion from medicare?

Reporter: And what would you do differently?

Romney/Ryan: You'll have to elect us to find out. But wasn't it terrible of Obama to steal all that medicare money from seniors?

or you could read Romney's plan

Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan

• Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
• Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
• All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
• If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
• “Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
• Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
• Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors

Frequently Asked Questions About Mitt’s Plan

What are the immediate effects of this plan?
This plan has no effect on current seniors or those nearing retirement. It will go into effect for younger Americans when they reach retirement in the future.

How is this different from the Ryan Plan?
Shortly after Mitt presented the proposal described here, Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bipartisan proposal that almost precisely mirrors Mitt’s ideas. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration immediately rejected the proposal. Mitt has applauded the Ryan-Wyden effort and looks forward to working as president with leaders from both sides of the aisle to implement meaningful reforms that will preserve Medicare for future generations.

How high will the premium support be? How quickly will it grow?
Mitt continues to work on refining the details of his plan, and he is exploring different options for ensuring that future seniors receive the premium support they need while also ensuring that competitive pressures encourage providers to improve quality and control cost. His goal is for Medicare to offer every senior affordable options that provide coverage and service at least as good as what today’s seniors receive. Lower income seniors in the future will receive the most generous benefits to ensure that they are able to get care every bit as good as that provided in the current Medicare program.

How will the plan impact total Medicare spending?
The total impact on spending will depend on a number of factors, including the rate of premium support increase and the effect of competitive pressure on providers. By replacing the inefficiency of the current system with a competitive, market-oriented system in which every provider – including the government – wants to find the most efficient way to provide high quality care, the plan puts the future of Medicare on a sound footing to meet the needs of future generations.

How will traditional Medicare remain an option?
Traditional Medicare will compete against private plans. It will be operated by the government and funded by premiums, co-insurance, and deductibles that are set at the level necessary to cover its costs. The attractiveness of this option to future seniors will depend on how its efficiency and quality compares to that offered by other providers in the marketplace. Future seniors will benefit from the innovation and competition among options.

How will seniors be affected by the costs of different options?
Future seniors will be able to enjoy the savings from selecting less expensive plans, or choose to pay more for costlier options. When the insurance premium costs less than the support provided, the balance will be available in an HSA-like account to pay for other out-of-pocket health expenses.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/medicare

People simply refuse to think for themselves and continue to accept the BS they are told by POLITICIANS. Medicare is not going bankrupt. What's hurting Medicare is rising costs of health care, in most cases unjustified rising costs. Each medical provider should provide patients with costs of any treatment and service they give, as well as a declaration as to whether they are owners of those service centers. People need to be able to shop around for xrays or MRIs as well as any other service they choose to compare. That's choice. Too many doctors drive up costs by making their patients get this test and that and by over xraying people. The prices are high because providers know that insurance will pick up the bill. If there was no such thing as health insurance, costs would not be high because no one could afford to pay for medical care.

To blame medicare for being medicare is simply stupid. Given economic trends, there is no way seniors would be able to afford medical care if they were given vouchers. You'd end up with seniors unable to afford health insurance and medical care.

A country in which people have jobs that pay a living wage will support medicare and social security for eternity. Heck, we've given more money to Iraq & Afghanistan in 10 years than we've put into support for the people in this country.

The Republicans simply want more money to give to defense contractors and the military.

Keen - The data does not support your view. Medicare is trending to be broke financially in twelve years. Today, if Medicare had to be fully funded like business does, it would require $33 TRILLION to fill the anticipated gap between revenue and expense.

See #5.6 for more detail.

Larry,

vouches will kill medicare. how can elderly afford it?

they can't

Mr. Vulture and Mr. Voucher - not going to happen.

Romney thinks corporations are people.

Ryan thinks a fertilized egg is a person.

Neither one of them think anyone that brings in less than $250k per year is a person.

Ryan on Medicare: 'We want this debate'

Good Ryan, which debate is that btw? The one where you want to strip Medicare or where Romney said he'd protect it?

Which begs another question: Which one of you flip-flopped positions? :)

Wall Street loves Ryan because he's bringing back an old idea: he wants to privatize Social Security.

There's no denying who it would benefit: big brokerages.

That's because even though SSA would "manage" the program, it would need Wall Street's help: brokers, market-makers, specialists, you name it.

Suddenly the financial industry would be getting up to $340 billion, half of Social Security's 2011 revenue, for fees, commissions and other value-added services.

Privatizing Social Security has long been the Holy Grail of Wall Street and the GOP.

With Paul Ryan on the ticket, Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and memories of 2008's crash fading, there's a chance that less than a decade after nearly wrecking the global economy, big financial interests could get the power to finish the job.

Gee I can't wait to get back to BUSINESS as usual and have unregulated banks... (like we didn't near jack back in 2009 did we folks?)

Larry,

thank you for putting out the Romney "plan".

It is a word salad, signifying that he too wants replace Medicare with a premium payment and Heatlh savings account.

the GOP has been peddling this idea for years.

Now it is front and center.

Voters will decide in November if they really want to destroy Medicare .

Or if they want to strengthen the program we have and some of the new parts of the ACA that indeed strengthten the current program.

Bman......Paul Ryan says not to call them vouchers, they are to be known as "Premium Support", lipstick on a pig comes to mind.

Some wit recently called them Ryan fun bucks...that would be a better name if you're going to the local arcade.

These conservatives have a peculiar sense of humor, wink wink

Hi Larry,

A few questions about Mitt's plan that I don't see answered there:

1: Why provide higher premium support for "lower income" seniors (and as an aside, how is "lower income" determined: is a retired millionaire "low income" if they're no longer getting a paycheck?)? On its surface, this seems like a progressive proposal, but does it really make sense? I mean, do lower income seniors have higher health costs than higher income seniors? The discrepancy suggests that for most seniors, this plan will transfer at least some cost burden from the medicare program to the seniors as individuals. If you wanted to make the program more progressive, wouldn't it be more efficient to just charge particularly wealthy seniors much higher premiums or put a medicare tax on investment income, and still provide equal benefits to everyone?

2: If the program does transfer costs to most seniors, but then uses the taxes paid by all to support the neediest, doesn't that transform it fundamentally into a welfare program? Don't Republicans hate big, expensive welfare programs? Is it hard to imagine that such a step would be intended to make medicare much less popular so that it would be easier to attack politically in the future?

3: This plan suggests that cost controls from competition would keep prices down, but isn't that what we've had for decades? Lots of private competition in the free market, and rapidly rising costs as a result? The Obama approach would instead use economies of scale and the clout of a single-payer medicare system to put downward pressure on costs. Is it a coincidence that other developed countries with single payer systems have much lower healthcare costs than the U.S.? Do you really think Mitt's proposal, which would necessarily reduce the ability of medicare to apply such pressure, would be more efficient and more effective at keeping costs down? If so, why?

"What's hurting Medicare is rising costs of health care, in most cases unjustified rising costs"

We found out that my husband has primary CNS Lymphoma. He is terminal. That being said, he will be in a wheelchair for the days he has left. What I don't understand is the way the Medicare system is set up. Why do we have to pay for a nursing home instead of covering home health? There are so many ways to give quality care to our loved ones that should not require a hospital or nursing home stay. But I was told that this is the way Medicare is set up. If there were a plan to stop the rising costs of these services, which I agree are unjustified, wouldn't that make the system work better? Somehow I get the feeling that this is one of the earliest cases of crony capitalism. By the way, between the Medicare premiums and the supplemental insurance I pay way under the $6000 that has been suggested for a voucher.

Paul Ryan's Plan as approved by the House of Representatives this year turns Medicare into a voucher program for those 55 or younger. It does not allow a choice for this younger generation. Mitt Romney supported this plan since at least the OHIO primary. Now, he picks the architect of this plan for his VP and immediately says he is for the other plan which was left on some desk in the House back in January of 2012.

MITT ROMNEY IS A LIAR AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

So much for waiting them to debate.

Brilliant

Romney would Kill Obamacare

Romney would turn Medicare into a voucher program

Since pre-existing conditions would cause seniors to be dropped by private insurance companies without the protections Obamacare provides. Remember they will HAVE TO PURCHASE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Millions and Millions of seniors and BABY-BOOMERS will be WITHOUT ANY INSURANCE. That's what the GOP is fighting tooth and nail for.

YES BABY-BOOMERS this is YOUR healthcare they are screwing with.

A Ryan Presidency - Yes Ryan Presidency, Romney's way too weak to be President and is already taking a back seat to Ryan - Would be catastrophic to the Middle class and elderly.

Larry Robinson-1323081 -- Romney and Ryan want to repeal ACA, which would cut current Medicare benefits, and they want to cut Medicaid which would cut current benefits such as nursing home care.

Further to a post above, the vouchers would not be indexed to inflation. So with skyrocketing medical costs, the vouchers would cover less and less.

Romney/Ryan do nothing about reducing the cost of healthcare, and do nothing to strengthen the Medicare. All they do is shift more of the costs on to seniors, and in the process further line the pockets of insurance companies in the private sector.

Funny how Romney & Ryan say reducing future Medicare spending by $700 Billion (over 10 years) in Obamacare is "robbery", given the RYAN BUDGET (which Romney has endorsed) INCLUDES THAT SAME, IDENTICAL $700 BILLION in "cuts".

Obamacare uses those $700 Billion in savings to provide health care to 30 million Americans who currently don't have health insurance.

The Ryan/Romney budget uses those SAME $700 Billion in savings to fund tax cuts for the rich.

Which is a better use of the $700 Billion in savings?
-- Provide health insurance for millions of uninsured (then Vote for Obama)
-- Tax Cuts for millionaires (then Vote for Romney)

This is just one example of HOW REPUBLICANS LIE!!!

Andrew..........catch up to current events for last 4 years if you really have no clue On President Obama Plans. Repubs have plan....not plans....a...plan. More tax breaks for the rich and making middle class and poor pay for them.

If Romney got in as president...do you really think he wouldn't go after medicare for those above 55 years old in a heartbeat.?..The liar can't be trusted on anything he says.

President Obama/Biden 2012

My friend in Wisconsin, majoring in Law, sent me this email message:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12 THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT PAUL RYAN

1. His economic plan would cost America 1 million jobs in the first year. Ryan's proposed budget would cripple the economy. He'd slash spending deeply, which would not only slow job growth, but shock the economy and cost 1 million of us our jobs in 2013 alone and kill more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2014.

2. He'd kill Medicare. He'd replace Medicare with vouchers for retirees to purchase insurance, eliminating the guarantee of health care for seniors and putting them at the mercy of the private insurance industry. That could amount to a cost increase of more than $5,900 by 2050, leaving many seniors broke or without the health care they need. He'd also raise the age of eligibility to 67.

3. He'd pickpocket the middle class to line the pockets of the rich. His tax plan is Robin Hood in reverse. He wants to cut taxes by $4.6 trillion over the next decade, but only for corporations and the rich, like giving families earning more than $1 million a year a $300,000 tax cut. And to pay for them, he'd raise taxes on middle- and lower-income households and butcher social service programs that help middle- and working-class Americans.

4. He's an anti-choice extremist. Ryan co-sponsored an extremist anti-choice bill, nicknamed the 'Let Women Die Act,' that would have allowed hospitals to deny women emergency abortion care even if their lives were at risk. And he co-sponsored another bill that would criminalize some forms of birth control, all abortions, and in vitro fertilization.

5. He'd dismantle Social Security. Ironically, Ryan used the Social Security Survivors benefit to help pay for college, but he wants to take that possibility away from future generations. He agrees with Rick Perry's view that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" and he supported George W. Bush's disastrous proposal to privatize Social Security.

6. He'd eliminate Pell grants for more than 1 million low-income students. His budget plan cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could mean a loss of educational funding for 1 million low-income students.

7. He'd give $40 billion in subsidies to Big Oil. His budget includes oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while cutting "billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil."

8. He's another Koch-head politician. Not surprisingly, the billionaire oil-baron Koch brothers are some of Ryan's biggest political contributors. And their company, Koch industries, is Ryan's biggest energy-related donor. The company's PAC and affiliated individuals have given him $65,500 in donations.

9. He opposes gay rights and equal rights. Ryan has an abysmal voting record on gay rights. He's voted to ban adoption by gay couples, against same-sex marriage, and against repealing "don't ask, don't tell." He also voted against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which President Obama signed into law in 2009.

10. He believes an, "I got mine, so why should I give a damn if you're okay or not," philosophy is admirable. For many years, Paul Ryan devoted himself to Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. It has shaped his entire ethic about whom he serves in public office. He even went as far as making his interns read her work.

11. Like Mitt Romney, he has little to no foreign relations or foreign policy experience. How is America going to compete and lead the world in international affairs or understand this global economy if they hardly know much about our allies or our enemies? Right-Wing Isolationism comes to mind, and it hardly places our nation in good standing with everyone else in the world.

12. In his entire career as a politician, Paul Ryan has only passed two bills: one for an excise tax on quivers or arrows, and naming a post office. Is this serious lack of job performance something we expect in the candidates we choose to lead our country?

from womenarewatching.org

Ryan voted to end funding for Planned Parenthood, which could jeopardize access to cancer screenings, birth control, and other preventive care that nearly three million Americans rely on each year.

Ryan has foreign policy experience...He can see Milwaukee from his kitchen window!

rradiko says...

2. He'd kill Medicare. He'd replace Medicare with vouchers for retirees to purchase insurance, eliminating the guarantee of health care for seniors and putting them at the mercy of the private insurance industry. That could amount to a cost increase of more than $5,900 by 2050, leaving many seniors broke or without the health care they need. He'd also raise the age of eligibility to 67.

It's much worse than that. It HAS to be. The cost of health insurance is largely determined by the insureds age. As a person ages, so does the cost of their health insurance -- at an exponential rate. Over the last ten years (or so) health insurance premiums have risen about 10% per year. So, if the Ryan budget is passed and enacted into law by the Romney administration and is fully implemented in 2023 for those people born after 1957 one can expect that the cost of health insurance will be double what it is today. And, as people age, the annual premium will certainly increase year after year.

One can extrapolate that the $6,500 voucher may cover two- or- three months premium at age 65 and, perhaps, a single month by age 80. It is not inconceivable that retired people will -- out of pocket -- pay 100% of their Social Security to their health insurance company and rely on their savings (if any) to cover the difference -- until they are, sooner rather than later, broke.

Millions of indigent senior citizens are in our future.

Ryan's Voucher plan suffers from Stupidity !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rradico: Yeah, and what foreign experience did Comrade Obama, race baiter and community organizer extraordinaire have when he was elected president? ZERO and it shows. He is incompetent. Not only is he incompetent but he hates America.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Our founding fathers would see Ryan & Romney as Clowns !!!!!!!!!!

Ryan's plan uses the same 716 billion, he says Obama cuts out of Medicare to make his own Medicare cuts.

So, Romney comes along and doesn't detail his plan, he just says he will repeal Obamacare (cost of 200 billion to the economy), restore the 716 billion, and then doesn't say where he will make reforms.

So Romney's plan, increase the deficit.....period.

Barbara, you can get home health care for the terminally ill on medicare. My father recently passed away from terminal cancer. He received hospice care at home. And I'm sure if you actually looked at your expenses beyond your premiums you are spending way more then $6000. I know the drug treatments alone for my father were through the roof. And your not taking into account that Ryan wants that $6000 voucher to cover you for an entire year.

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. It is only guaranteed to work on liberals.

The Ryan plan is nearly identical to the Senior prescription drug plan. So "premium support" would be the correct term.

Right now in Medicare, there is increasingly less and less treatments and drugs available and only ONE medical plan basically. What is sounds like is the Fed only is requiring the private industry to provide the medicare "standard" of treatments in exchange for receiving the premiums. Then it is permissible for the Seniors to pay additional premium if they would like more expensive optional drugs or treatments for their care.

BTW The Senior Prescriptioin drug program is running 40% BELOW the CBO projected cost.

Shaak

It does not allow a choice for this younger generation

Wrong. Those under 55 have the option of staying with the current medicare plan. What will happen is that you will see people opt out of the current Medicare Plan. This is becaused doctors will accept the "Premium Support" plan when they find that they will not be cut on reimbursments as hard as they are on medicare the way it is being hacked appart right now.

Which means that elderly patients won't be able to find doctors willing to take them unless they agree to pay out the wazoo.

Oh, such an improvement!

Mike in California, exactly! My insurance through a work group plan costs not too much less than the voucher per year today, and I am under 55. Medicare was started in the first place because way back in the early 1960s most seniors did not have health insurance because they could not afford it or could not get accepted. While I know Ryan's plan stipulates that insurance companies must accept seniors, there is nothing in Ryan's plan that protects seniors from getting priced out of the market by insurance companies. Private insurance does not want to cover seniors--way too high a liability. When I did the calculations based on healthcare inflation, and the average price of an individual plan for a 64-year-old, my result was a monthly premium of over $1600 for a 65-year-old in 2023. I know cuts have to be made, but please make them in a humane manner--caps, rules, restrictions, but DO NOT end access to healthcare for most future seniors. The younger generations of future seniors will have paid in the most, and the older future seniors born after 1957 have worked, paid into Medicare and been promised Medicare and planned for Medicare for over 30 or 35 years.

DBAkron, You are wrong. Those younger than 55 will receive a voucher to purchase private insurance plans. HCON 34 RH Section 501 C2 (the Ryan budget as passed by the House in 2012) states "For future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs."

Medicare is not an insurance plan that can be bought. It is a retirement insurance program, a single payer system without any provisions for buying in. The Ryan plan intentionally does not address this issue because it will end Medicare as we know it.

Medicare has overhead of 6%. Private insurance under Obama's reform is now capped at 20% overhead (selling and administration expenses). Ryan's plan is a giveaway to private insurers and does nothing to address the rising cost of health care.

Before you past judgement can we please see what they say.

They had six months on saying NOTHING::::

Six months? What about Obama do we know what he plans to do?

I will wait for the debates before passing judgement. At least, now they are taking about it. Hell, even the news is starting to cover it.

thetotas.........really?....Obama.......do we know what he plans top do?........Another one.....been doing the ol Rip Van Winkle for the last years have ya? If you don't know what President Obama's plans are go study 4 years back in time and come back and join the discussion. Maybe Mittster can help you with his retroactive mental wayback machine.

The president and Dem's plan for Medicare is Medicare. And the ACA will actually start to address costs.

Ryan will be Romney's worst enemy !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obamacare will NOT lower medical costs. Haven't you figured out by now that once the government gets it's hand on any part of the economy that costs go up and it will be more inefficient? How many medical procedures will be denied once Obamacare is in full force when the budget runs out for the year? Especially for seniors. How long will you have to wait for a lifesaving procedure when the entire population of America is now in the system? Have you not done your research on how socialized medicine works in countries that have it? Canada and Great Britain? It doesn't work! What will be the incentive for doctors after all the money, education and time they put in to become a doctor once the government starts telling them they are only going to get 10.00 for an office visit. Doctors will leave medicine and there will be a shortage of doctors. I already know one that retired because of Obamacare. There will be more.

Ryan's plan uses the same 716 billion, he says Obama cuts out of Medicare to make his own Medicare cuts.

So, Romney comes along and doesn't detail his plan, he just says he will repeal Obamacare (cost of 200 billion to the economy), restore the 716 billion, and then doesn't say where he will make reforms.

So Romney's plan, increase the deficit.....period.

Obamacare cuts 200 billion over 10 years.

Universal health care does work, otherwise other countries in the world would do it the USA way.

US is 37th in the world in health care, what does that say about American exceptionalism.

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

Eric

Obama cuts payments to doctors, cuts the bridge insurance program, cuts some more effective treatments in favor of less effective treatments that cost less.

Medicare fraud is believed to be 25% of the cost of Medicare. In private companies hands the amount of fraud will drop to 1% permitting the private companies to pay doctors at an agreed to cost for procedures and visits.

On top of all that the Federal government will experience a drop in administrative costs.

$200 billion over 10 years

IF the do they have to be paying doctors $40 for an office visit no matter if the cost of it is $60 in Small town USA or $120 in New York, San Francisco or Gnome Alaska!

Great plan! Would you work for $40 when your cost is even $41?

Not only that, but the ACA per CBO is projected to cost an additional $1.7 Trillion over 10 years, and you are excited about a supposed $200 Billion saving over 10 years. Sorry Eric, but those numbers are bankrupcy numbers.

Fix things for who? Ryan shields those over 55 from his Medicare kill-off plan thinking to keep them in the pro-GOP voter fold, while shifting everyone younger over to a voucher plan that costs participants $6000, and loses more to inflation every passing year. He thinks the younger people won't notice, or care, for now. But some of those older folks do notice, and they have kids, and younger siblings, and they don't like what is being proposed.

How fair is it to protect the full benefit of Medicare for boomers, who have gotten the full benefit of higher wages, full pensions (note that those don't exist for younger workers), Social Security, and affordable educations. What do coming generations have to look forward to? What will they have to fall back on when they get sick? Will they ever be able to retire?

If such a "fix" is necessary, why do Ryan/Romney think it shouldn't affect the boomer generation at all? And why do all the cuts translate into profits for the private insurers? How does that lower costs, or "fix" anything, since these guys have been more than happy to pass along and contribute to rising healthcare costs?

I fully understand your concern, but broke is broke. Modifications MUST be made. See my comments at #5.6. Medicare is not sustainable. You have been warned! We all have to be realistic. We cannot continue to spend more than we take in.

Modifications MUST be made.

You won't find much argument there. The argument is in the approach, the fairness, how the burden is shared. I really dislike the idea of dumping all the pain on the next generation. Don't they have enough to worry about already? I don't think we boomers are really that willing to do that to our kids.

SoNotRight, aren't you in the 'spread the wealth' party? Shouldn't those under 54 be willing to let the current seniors prosper from Medicare?

Hurts when it cuts your way, doesn't it?

Cuts will hurt. No doubt about it.

What politician can get elected by telling us what we need to do? We have to make MAJOR cuts to the so-called entitlement programs and we need to eventually raise taxes across the board. Now, vote for me. Fat chance!!!!

SoNot - Every day that we delay changing Medicare, we heap more burden upon future generations.

See #5.6

Hurts when it cuts your way, doesn't it?

Cuts my way? I think you misunderstand, I stand to benefit under the Ryan plan because I'm over 55. Why would I want to see any one group of people "prosper" at the expense of another just so one party can preserve senior votes?

Every day that we delay changing Medicare, we heap more burden upon future generations

If you're concerned about future generations, you should hear what I'm saying:

I don't object to changes, I just don't accept what Ryan has in mind. Protect the status quo for a few years, then screw the next generation. If it's so severely off course now, then the current crop of seniors have ownership in it too. Their votes, their elected leaders, put it where it is now, so why does Ryan exclude them from the fix? They get full Medicare, pensions, and Social Security in their 60's, and all the burden of the mistakes made to this point shift to the following generations? No way, I won't support that - and I'm over 55.

Way back in the mid 80's we had the same problem with rising Medicare costs. A bipartisan tax increase was passed and Medicare was saved (for 30 + years anyway). An employee currently pays 1.45% of his income in Medicare taxes. !2 years or so from now Medicare will need additional revenues to meet its payouts. A small tax increase of .1% now ($1 of every $1000 income in increased tax) would keep Medicare solvent for another 5-10 years.

Its good to talk about planning ahead, but this mountain just isn't that tough to climb. Right now, our focus in health care should be to try to make our health care system more efficient and more fair. We have 40 + million with no health insurance. We all pay for them (if you pay health insurance premiums, it is $1000/family added cost) every time they cannot afford to pay the bills for their health care. Note: it is considered bad form for hospitals to just let them DIE.

Obamacare will cover 30 million more people and will help improve the overall health of those joining Medicare. This will help Medicare which currently has to cover many who haven't had health insurance in years and postponed needed surgeries and other treatments or simply didn't go to the doctor because they could not afford it.

rational poster,

throwing elderly on street is going to be burden to families that have to take over. But I guess you don't have enough brains to get that.

b a man - And your solution is?????

shaak - You are not in the realm of reason with your numbers. See #5.6.

It would take $33 TRILLION dropped in the federal coffers today to plug the gap between projected revenue and projected expenditure to cover the next 75 yrs. That is not your 0.1% idea.

Devdoc.......Romney and Ryan telling the truth.....ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

They say the same thing that is truthful.....give more tax breaks for the rich, make middle class and poor pay their taxes that they should have been paying.

Obama/Biden 2012

Rational...give it up. Above posts say it all. Ryan guts more from Medicare and gives it in tax breaks to the rich.......End of discussion. NO DEAL! No MORE TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!

Obama/Biden 2012

Single payer for all would make Medicare solvent. As Romney observed on his trip to the UK, Israel, and Poland -- All have national health care systems. Eventually rightwingers will catch up...

Palin or Bachmann would have been a better pick then Ryan !!!!!!!!

To all those whining that "something must be done because Medicare will be broke in 10 years!" the solution is to expand Medicare for everyone, drop the for profit insurance companies and get an instant savings of at least 30%, if not more, from the entire health care budget which is is presently 16% of the entire US GDP. That's a whole lot of bucks which can go directly into health care instead of wall street insurance company profits.

As afar as SS, remove the cap on incomes at the high levels and that problem is solved.

The solution to a whole range of economic problems is to simply stop feeding the wealthy such a disproportionate share of what we produce.

If someone doesn't find $10 million/yr a healthy incentive to do what they are doing and demands $100 million/yr as their bottom line you are dealing with one sick and irresponsible puppy. Stop pretending that these greedy bastards are "creators" or economic "gods"...the last recent collapse of the deck of cards and the lack of jobs right now should prove to you that they are not. We're all being taken by a bunch of skilled carnival barkers and snake oil salesman. Prove Barnum wrong this election, would you? Give the only adult on the stage another 4 year shot.

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

Obama supporters.

What happened to the Democratic Party of John F Kennedy

the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but
from the hand of God.

AND

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

What I hear from the Democrats of the day is that rights come from the government. What I hear from Obama is go to this or that agency to get things for yourself.

Pitiful it is, what that the Democratic Party has become. "Yoda".

star - Based upon your track record, nothing that you say is connected or rational. Ryan's proposed Medicare modifications have nothing to do with any tax breaks. There is NO cap on Medicare taxes so the more you make the more you pay.

Anytime ANY change is made in taxes, we are talking about the wealthy because the Top 10% of AGI earners pays 71% of Individual Federal Income Tax. If you want to raise tax rates, it will be the wealthy that are impacted. If you lower tax rates, it will be the wealthy that are impacted.

With the Top 10% paying 71%, where do you want to go from there. Do you want them to pay it all for you?

And what would you replace it with?

I dont totally disagree, but we have been paying into this program forever so I want SOME return on my investment.. Obama is kicking the can down the road, they WILL be bankrupt when I retire with his plan, no doubt

The answer to all this medicare and SS is to take thecaps off and lower the rate down to 3 or 4 %...

Medicare needs to go away before it bankrupts our country.

Spoken like a true conservative. Pass unfunded Part D which bankrupts the system, then bitch about it being bankrupt, then take the entire thing away vs. fixing what the conservatives ruined to start with. Gotta give the GOP credit .. they tried for years to get rid of the system, and they finally found a way, but it will fail.

Guess what folks, we will keep Medicare, keep Medicare Part D, and we will fund it via higher taxes and possibly higher premiums via a means test.

Maze

there is no current cap on medicare earnings

Medicare has to be modifed and the sooner the better. If Medicare obligations were accrued and funded like business is required to do, it would need $33 TRILLION today to account for the gap between expected expenses over the next 75 years vs the expect revenues over the same period.

SOurce: http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-debt-on-accrual-basis.html

First, stop going to wars, if we didn't go to Iraq, we wouldn't have half of the issues, if we stop the bush tax cuts, how about that, and cut loopholes for rich and that should bring even more money.

Rational Poster and other ignorant people like him,

We need to strengthen the program, not make it a voucher programs. What seniors going to do when then going to have to pay $8000 a year more for health care? where they going to get that money to pay for that on fixed income? So lets throw elderly on street or give them shotgun to shoot themselves.

It is shameful

B A Man - I take offense to being called ignorant, thank you. You can disagree with me but that does not make me ignorant. You need to offer something rather than insults.

The Top 10% of AGI earns just 43% of income but pays 71% of Individual Federal Income Tax. How much do you want the Top 10% to pay?

Rational....Just let the Bush tax cuts expire like they were meant to. All of them.

Medicare is paid for with a 1.45% tax on employee income. 1.45% additional for employer. 2.9% total to cover your healthcare in your old age when health insurance is most expensive.

We could increase Medicare funding by 50% and our taxes would go up .72%. That is $7.20 on $1000 income. Nobody is proposing that, but you should put this problem in perspective. It is not that large a mountain to climb and we do have more pressing issues, in case you haven't noticed.

We're only talking about Medicare now because Romney picked Paul Ryan for VP and his House approved Budget includes his plan for turning Medicare into an underfunded voucher program for those 55 and younger.

guy - I'd like to see something like letting them ALL just expire and committing to spending reductions of the same size. Now, that would be a serious HUGE step.

If you keep the tax cuts in place for all but the top 5% and let the rates for the top 5% return to higher levels, we only gain around $200 billion per yr in additional revenue which is like spitting in the ocean.

Jeez, Larry, of course there's a cap on the income that is taxed. What is it 1.45% on up to $106,800 or 120,000? What if we collected that 1.45% tax on all the income. For a person earning $1,000,000 per year, we could get an extra .0145 x 880,000 = $12,760 / year/ millionaire. Good dal. Let's go for it.

Rational Poster - You make some good points regarding medicare so give me your input on this:

Would you support medicare and Social Security returning to their true form of independent programs AND adding a constitutional amendment to keep them as such and forbids the congress from "tapping" into the fund?

Regarding the bush tax cuts. Would you support having the tax cuts expire for those making less than $500,000 while maintaining the current spending levels we have AND use the revenue generated to have 35% go toward fortifying medicare and the remaining 65% in paying down the national deficit for the next 5 years?

Just curious??

ctviking...simple solution for you....move to another country!

Hey dip@!$%# larry the cap on SS and Medicare is 106,600 it is 15% for both...you pay half and the employee pays half... No if you take the caps off you could take in another 2 trillion dollars over ten years or you can lower the percent to 7% for both and take in 1 trillion....Thats what I call trickle up Economics.

Can Ryan do dog tricks for the Clown !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

Being 53 yo and paying into the system since I was 19 - I get royally screwed with Ryans "lack of" plan.

It does not address the cost increased, leaves the increased to be born solely from my income at the exact time when I retire.

Exactly how am I suppose to pay the extra increase over the voucher?

I'll take President Obama's plan anyday of Ryans.

Rational

If you keep the tax cuts in place for all but the top 5% and let the rates for the top 5% return to higher levels, we only gain around $200 billion per yr in additional revenue

You would gain from the rich and have less taxpayers paying into the system and more needing government help.

Last week the CBO released a report that indicated over 700,000 jobs would be lost by letting the top 5% tax cuts expire.

The jealous ones clamouring for this change only see the $200 Billion gain and not the losses of revenues elsewhere that will result nor the additional costs that will be incurred to support those that will not get a new job immediately and possibly NEVER!

shaak & maze

Here is the problem with this country and issues like we are discussing plus people agree with him giving shaak 3 votes for #5.12 and you were so strong in your comment - BUT YOU ARE WRONG!

Social Security is capped but Medicare IS NOT. This is not hard stuff to look up guys. Try googling "Medicare Tax Cap".

http://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2011/pb22324/html/info_006.htm

common sense - I like people that propose solutions and make rational recommendations. I am not sure if your message is a typo or you intended to say let the tax rates rise on people UNDER $500,000. If/when, tax rates return to original levels, I'd do it across the board for everyone.

I sure like some things about your recommendation b/c Medicare is VERY important and it is VERY underfunded. I think the weakness in what you propose is that out current spending level on the federal budget exceeds our revenue even at the higher tax rates. I have not done my research on that so I could be worng. I think we have to seriously cut spending regardless.

I'll say it again. I like for us to be considering a variety of ideas. Thanks.

D B Akron - You are spot on. I should have added that the $200 billion figure assumes everything else remains static meaning that no one changes their behavior. I should have said that $200 Billion is the MAX you could get. In reality, it would be less.

kevin - I don't know that the Ryan plan screws you (your words). You would get less than people do today. Hey, if we are going to fix this deficit crisis, a lot of us are going to have to get real and realize that we are going to get less.

I think the Ryam plan is to try and bring so realism to Medicare so there is a program for your children and grandchildren. Do you know how much money $33 TRILLION is? That is what would be required TODAY to have Medicare fully funded if accounting was done like companies must do when they make promises. It takes that much today - not over time, but TODAY to fill the gap between what we project we'll take in and what will flow out.

So, you think you feel like you are getting screwed, huh? Well, let's do nothing and really screw our kids and grandkids!

If Medicare obligations were accrued and funded like business is required to do, it would need $33 TRILLION today to account for the gap between expected expenses over the next 75 years vs the expect revenues over the same period.

Medicare is not a business nor should it be, hence business models do not apply 33Trillion/75 yrs = .44 trillion or $440 billion/yr ...a manageable amount for a country of this size and GDP.

Here's a refreshing cup of cold water to put out your blazing hair. You really do need to change conditioners.

the Ryan budget is a modest first step in restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutional governance. that is probably the reason libs detest it so much

A modest first step, and yet another step to protect the super rich.

restoring fiscal responsibility

Ryan, the GOP, and the TP have never demonstrated fiscal responsibility, so why on earth should we believe it suddenly starts now?

Modest plan? Radical plans that gives extra 4 billions dollars to rich but put seniors on voucher system

wow that smart

You know what I really detest. Its the LIES. I like debate. I like facts. I don't like lies. Ryan's voucher plan for Medicare passed the House this year. Obama did not gut the work requirement in welfare law. Obama was not born in Kenya. Obama honors the law. He does not plot to enslave the people.

Truth is the way to solutions. Lies lead to hatred and despair and escalates from there

Larry - With due respect to your comment, how is that being a step toward fiscal responsibility when it doesn't even balance the budget until 2040? His is it being fiscal responsible when you are proposing to cut taxes an additional 20% for those at the top? How is it being fiscal responsible when you are proposing to ease regulations so that companies can receive tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas?

These are just a few of his proposals. Please offer your wisdom on how this is considered fiscally responsible

Larry........how is giving more tax breaks to the rich being fiscal responsible?.......look what the rich did to the economy....trickle on every body but the rich does not work ecept for the top 1%.........DUH>>>>SIMPLY DUHHHHH!

Romney said if you need a job go to China or India, outsourcing is working for them !!!!!!!!!!!!

the Ryan budget is a modest first step in restoring fiscal responsibility

No, it is not!

Ryan asked the CBO to analyse the effects of his plan.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The CBO report, prepared at Chairman Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just 3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO notes, “spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year [since World War II]” and Ryan seeks a high level of defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of government would largely have to disappear.

from Talking Points Memo:

...the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called “extended baseline scenario” — a.k.a. projections based on current law — debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window. In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes.

Now, understand that the CBO's analysis used Ryan's assumptions about reducing government expenditures even though no specific plans were made in the Ryan proposal.

From Econspeak:

While the baseline scenario has other spending (defense and nondefense) at 7.75% of GDP, Ryan’s fantasy scenario has this at 3.75% of GDP even though Romney has promised that defense spending alone will be 4% of GDP. So maybe Dean is being generous when he claims we would have to eliminate the rest of the government as the Romney-Ryan plan asserts we can have negative spending on the rest of the Federal government. They must have some secret new fuzzy math! Or maybe this is why Romney is promising to keep Federal spending at 20% of GDP rather than Ryan’s assertion that it will be only 16% of GDP. Then again – Romney-Ryan are promising to balance the budget even as they cut all sorts of tax rates. Ryan asserted to the CBO that his tax plan would generate revenues equal to 19% of GDP even though under current tax rates, revenues in 2011 were less than 16% of GDP. While I trust we will eventually have economic recovery, the last time we tried Laffer Curve tax policies, taxes as a share of GDP fell. I wish I understood this secret new fuzzy math that leads Romney and Ryan to think this time will be different.

Well, there you have it! Most of Ryan's plan depends on the same old Republi9can saw that "reducing taxes increases government revenue more than the revenue lost due to those tax cuts". We tried that under George W. Bush. Instead of increased revenues what we ended up with was a doubling of the national debt in 8 years!

gdale

hey parasite, why don't you try being responsible for your own life instead of stealing from others?

If Romney wants people off their butts and working, he needs to tell it to his red state constituents. We've got jobs here and nobody wants them because they think they're too good to work for these wages. They end up going migrant workers and then they complain about that too.

Paying into Medicare demonstrates personal responsibility. The GOP/TP are advocating letting the government collect the money and skip out on the bills. There is no accountability or responsibility in the Ryan/Romney plan.

gdale - What is your solution? We cannot continue to spend more than we take in. For Medicare specifically, see #5.6 and tell me your proposal for solving this. It is easy to disagree. The platform is burning. We HAVE to do something.

Paying into Medicare demonstrates personal responsibility.

How is that demonstrating personal responsibility? It is the law.

Larry, at it again. Someone who has worked hard all his life while paying his taxes is no parasite.. What is the matter with you? Take a breath. OK now, when the rich take the largest share of our NATIONAL WEALTH since the GREAT DEPRESSION and still want more tax cuts, what are they? Greeeeeedy parasites, I say, feeding on the middle class like some sort of VAMPIRE til there's nothing left to suck..

Why is it unfair for the rich to get a tax cut? They already pay a higher percentage which I think is completely wrong. It's just become the new normal so everyone thinks it's ok. You should pay the same percent whether you make $1 or $1,000,000,000. It's FAIR.

Ryan VP is another nail in the Clowns Coffin !!!!!!!

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

Why is it unfair for the rich to get a tax cut?

Because they can well afford the lack of one and almost no one else can.

"Unfair" in this case being defined as "lacking common sense".

Romney does draw some very strange characters !!!!!!

With Obama surrounded by Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Shultz, Gibbs, and Axelrod you have the faces of the new American Socialist Party. Obama will say anything to convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

Romneycare is Socialism, guess that makes Romney Socialist !!!!!!!!!

inbethlehem- so you also like being a parasite- stealing from the taxpayers since the taxes you paid for medicare won't even begin to pay for what you take from it.

40 plus trillion in the red doesn't bother you?

Two unfunded wars and promises for lower taxes for the wealthy bother me far more than planning to retire on money from a system I've been paying into and then expecting it to be there.

See #5.6 Forewarned is forearmed.

Larry, judge and jury, greedy parasite sucking the life out of the middle class. It all depends on one's health how much Medicare has to pay out. My Dad worked his whole life and died before collecting $.01 from Medicare. Others need little care. Some people need alot. Which are you? So if you're in bad health on Medicare and they spend more on you than you paid in, you're a parasite, really?

Isn't that how insurance works? Uneven payouts based on events and circumstances.

These GOP judges don't care about the middle class, their set for life on the tax payers dime !!!!!!!!!!

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. It is only guaranteed to work on liberals.

Let me get this straight, you mean to tell me that Ryan and Romney want to debate Medicare. That's as funny as Beaver and Wally Cleaver managing a convenience store. These two clowns THINK their going to pull the wool over our eyes. Well think again boys, the BUSH 43 era is over. Pandering to the 1, 2 , 3, 4 ,5 %ers is OVER. The working class is speaking out, and in groves I might add. We want an America for all, not just the few. If your aim is to screw the seniors, think again.

40 plus trillion in the red doesn't bother you?

and Romney/Ryan's proposal will fix that how??

...the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called “extended baseline scenario” — a.k.a. projections based on current law — debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window. In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes.

Larry, you really are talking nonsense. All of us who paid FICA through our working years are entitled to SS and Medicare. Yes, that's right, you read it correctly, entitled and thus they are called entitlements, no one gives anyone anything, it is our own money the government pays back.

Gingerbread Mamma

It is called an entitlement as a legal term when the govt promises a statutory benefit

However SS & Medicare are NOT guaranteed to you or anyone else

Social Security & Medicare benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestorand Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

Gee Larry, several months before I reached retirement age, I received an invitation from the federal government to visit them so I could sign up for SS and Medicare, because as the letter said, I was entitled. I was treated courteously, my questions answered, everything was explained and several months later a check was deposited in my bank account and has every month ever since. In addition, any medical expenses except 20% which I cover with a supplemental insurance I pay, has been provided when I needed medical attention....I guess I drew a lucky number along with a lot of other folks, thanks!

Larry is actually correct. They are not obligations in the legal sense like qualified retirement plans are at companies, for example.

In fact, Medicare alone, if it was required to be fully funded like business is required to be, would require $33 TRILLION today to cover the gap between revenues and expenses over the next 75 years. HOUSTON - WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-debt-on-accrual-basis.html

Larry has it partly right. In Flemming v Nestor the plaintiiff was denied social security payment because, as was stipulated in the ss act, someone who is deported for being a member of the communist party has no claim on social security benefits.

Wow, Larry, you do go on. So confident, so smug, judging others. Luck plays a large role in life. The luck of birth. Born to a rich, well-connected family and you could be the next George Bush. Oops, mother fell down the stairs, permanent disability. Compassion for others is a civilized way to help us deal with this LUCK. Try it.

Larry can sell hot dogs at the GOP Convention for his retirement ?????

PROVE IT!! Where is Obamas Gestapo?? why hasnt he sicked the IRS on him??

He commited a fraud on his swiss accounts...So how do you think the public would take it?

where's your proof Maze? If you don't have proof you are engaged in slander.

Andrew Witkowski - my Polish friend - the IRS did sic them - there was an amnesty in place I believe on the Swiss Bank Accounts - and many of these high-rollers took advantage of them else be a felon

So the supposition is that Willard did comply with the amnesty

However - as he is wont to say - "just trust me"

Hate those three words - it's used by people you should never trust

TRUST IS EARNED NOT GIVEN

Maze, are you really that ignorant, or are you just looking for attention?

Are you jealous because Romney is successful and you are a Dem liberal slug? Do you even work? How's that welfare doing?

Willard has already lied about his taxes AND lied to the IRS and the Mass Election Commission. When he wanted to run for Gov. of Mass he had to "retroactively" move his primary residence from Utah to Mass because, on his tax return he had claimed the Utah house be his primary residence which would have disqualified him from running for Governor. In addition to everything else he has done Mitt has committed tax fraud and voter fraud. And that is who the Republicans are running for president. That is who is saying "trust me".

The supposition about Mr. Romney and his taxes is no more factual than the supposition that Mr. Obama passed himself off as a foreign national to secure financial aid for his university and graduate education.

The only difference between the two is that anti-Romney side claims that their supposition is actually fact based on information from reliable (but unnamed) sources while the anti-Obama side keeps indicating that this MAY be the reason so much has been spent to prevent school records from becoming public.

Do you really want to live in a nation governed by an Administration that supports a return to McCarthyism?

Whiners...Romney caught again lying on his Luxembourg offshore accounts. The documents state he was CEO of Bain at that time he has his signature on legal documents. Now he is ...retroactively saying he left retroactively from Bain. So Rt wingers....which one of his lies is the real lie and the other lie not a lie any more?

Hey Maze, Annie Romney said only the little people pay taxes !!!!!!

Romney has lied about his taxes because liberals say so. How comical. Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. Guaranteed to work on all liberals.

patriotic american usa is the true spokeman for all democrats!!!!!!

Reducing 80% of our laws would be a nice step to reducing the monstrosity known as the Totalitarian US Govt.

I'd like to see the Congress go back to meeting part-time and stop meddling in our lives

Yeah, let's go back to the good old days when is was legal to force sexual favors in return for keeping your job, or you could refuse to sell a house to someone based upon their skin color, or refuse to make a loan unless you were stale, pale, and male. Hell, why not go back to the days when women and Catholics couldn't vote. You conservatives sure to talk a mean game, but your fantasy land is rife with flaws.

RedHerringPS

You evidently so brainwashed and in love with being enslaved to the state and having the govt control your life. But I don't want any part of it.

No one is forcing you to sign up for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or a healthcare plan. You have all the freedom in the world to reject the offers. There is nothing 'enslaving' about it - feel free to excuse yourself from these programs.

I do, but the govt wants to go beyond that- stealing my tax dollars for their totalitarian style govt is contrary to liberty

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

A FREE Citizen Keeps their earnings and pays taxes on that which they consume or services they use.

A subject is someone where the Govt determines how much of their income they can keep.

We lost our freedom as free citizens with the implementation of the 16th amendment.

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities." James Madison 1792 letter on taxation

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."
-- The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax

A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits..."

Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, March 3, 1910, against the ratification of the 16th Amendment (which would allow the Federal Government to Tax incomes)

Nice citations - if only they could be put into some context of whatever point you are trying to make. If your argument it totalitarianism, it can be easily argued a capitalistic society is totalitarian via corporate ownership of government. If your argument is taxation - well, you are out of luck there. Ryan/Romney have no plans to reduce taxes except for the wealthy. Feel free to continue your pointless rants, and I will feel free to continue to knock 'em down.

Larry R -- "I'd like to see Congress go back to meeting part-time..."

What? You can't be serious. You think Congress works full time?

Larry ...reducing 80% of your comments would be a nice step to reduce the nonsense posted on this blog!

99% gag order would work better, this guy has the wrong message !!!

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. It is only guaranteed to work on liberals.

hey man you got anymore of that wacky weed?

Please drop the "laker" from your name. I don't want anyone to think it's me! Your claims are provably false. The $500BILLION, $700BILLION, $760BILLION, $716BILLION (it seems to change daily as Romney/Ryan try to figure out how to lie about this) is a cost SAVINGS. It's being cut from insurance company subsidies and payments to providers (doctors, drug companies, hospitals) most of whom agreed with the cuts in order to get the added business. Ryan would cut a similar amount but would place it squarely on the backs of Seniors by giving them a voucher to buy private insurance in the open market. Next

Laker Steve, what nonsense, nothing could be further from the truth.

Please provide a link(s) substantiating your outrageous claim.

500 Billion from Medicare.....all going to his campaign fund + supporting all the illegals he gave amnesty to.

It's more like 700 billion, and it remains for health care under the Obama (and Romney) plan. Ryan's plan removes it and gives it away to his buds.

Laker.......Does your arm have pain, any chest pains and dizziness?..Any back pain or slurring of your speech.......? Feeling nautious........?

Hey Laker, Get that info from bazooka bubble gum wrappers ??????????

Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.

No doubt, Obama is working hard to continue the safety net for seniors. After all he claims that now Medicare which was going broke in 8 years when he took office, is saved because his policies have extended the life to 12 years. Wow, a whole four more years! That is the same as whoops, four more years, well okay lets take credit for it. This fact is a simple one, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. It is only guaranteed to work on liberals.

hummbird- show me where in the Constitution the Federal Govt has any authority to meddle in the health or healthcare decisions that individuals make?

It's a parasite because you are living off of others.

Larry...was that last sentence English?

show me where in the Constitution the Federal Govt has any authority to meddle in the health or healthcare decisions that individuals make

Tell us where in the Constitution it says the Federal Government cannot offer entitlements. The only parasite here is the one wasting bytes on non existent talking points.

Larry: And the Republicans mandating transvaginal ultrasounds, no abortion for any reason even rape and incest, and on and on and on. For being "small government" they sure want to mess with our lives.

reddevps

James Madison who wrote most of the Constitution stated in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves." —Thomas Jefferson

Unemployment rate stuck at 8.3% because of the TeaWackos in Congress, sabotaging our nation for political gain has the middle class pissed off !!!

What middle class? Almost 50% of all households pay no federal income tax, and those that do are being vilified by liberals for not paying their fair share. Not "paying their fair share" is an enigma, something liberals are actually incapable of defining. Lets face it, Obama will say anything to try and convince everyone that he has actually done something. A strategy that is guaranteed to work on all liberals.

The ones not paying their fair share is the 1%, get it right dude !!!!!

Maria, obama cuts over $700 billion out of Medicare, much more than Ryan's plan does. obama and bidens plan which will doom SSI earlier is to do nothing. You liberals need to get facts straight. You liberals keep touting the HC bill. I will guarantee that if nothing is changed, that within five years, it will bankrupt our country. The democrats always talk about spending cuts, cutting fraud, and the like, but it never happens. You keep talking about cutting the doctor's and health providers pay. What's going to happen when many decide it is too little and stop practicing? Get ready for a six month wait to see a doctor. Liberals need to stop visiting Alice in Wonderland and come in to the real world.

You should read about the Brit Hume interview with Ryan tonight,it will blow your mind.He says they haven't even gone over the numbers in the Romney budget and that's besides what he says to Brit about his Medicare plan-Too funny !!

We don't want your totalitarian meddling into our decisions about our health.

I want the govt to leave me alone and stay out of my life!

I am sorry, Larry...I really can't tell who that was aimed at...was it against Ryan for trying to force ultrasounds and turning back the clock on birth control?

it's against the fascist obama and all totalitarian liberals

Laker, go check your facts. Take a look at Mass and see how the ER visits have increased.

Larry: CAN DO! Just make sure you don't drive on our highways, fly in our skies, eat, wear or use anything that comes by highway, air, rail or sea, use telephones, telegraphs, or any other regulated communication system, put your money in banks, use electriciy, water, gas, oil, or any other fuel that comes to you by highway, air, rail, sea or pipeline. In a couple of months let us all know how that's working for you!

hjack: And your claim proves what? That there are a lot more traffic accidents because of Romney's neglect of the Mass transportation system? That there are a lot of people out of work because Romney made Mass 47th in the nation in job creation? A lot more depression because under Romney the unemployment rate increased and would have been more had a lot of young people not moved out of the state looking for work? What, hjack, exactly is your point?

lakerman - Do you live in MA premiums have only gone down for those individuals on the Ronmeycare for the rest of us they have gone up. 15% percent of the population is on welfare and if you make under 300% percent of the state poverty level you're eligible for cheap health care. Romneycare is nothing but another freebie for democratic votes. Romneycare is costing the state money and we would be in trouble in the state without funds from the federal government to prop Romneycare up. Ronmeycare has been changed by the dems since the bill had been signed and continue to cost the state more than originally projected.

Unemployment under Romney was 4.3% and job creation went from 47th to 38th. Please tell me Lakerman how you have job creations went your state is consider at full employment with an unemployment rate of 4%. Under Deval Patrick are unemployment rate is over 6% not great but better than nationally.

You are right about people leaving this state but it has nothing to do with jobs its all about being tax to death. We're not called Taxachusetts for nothing.

As for our roads - The policitical hacks here have been stealing from the Department of Transportation for years and they hate Mitt Romeny because he finally took charge of the Big Dig and stopped their gravy train and eliminated waste in this department which resulted in hacks family members and friends losing jobs. Money for roads was all suck up for the Big Dig which wasn't Mitt's project it was already started when he was elected.

Lakerman - quit reading white house talking points and the boston globe.

I live in MA and I would take Mitt back instead of the welfare queen, illegal pandering Obamalite Deval Patrick.

Larry....We are standing on a public sidewalk...We ARE NOT on your lawn!!!!!

but you want me to pay for your healthcare, your retirement, your EITC, unemployment benefits, and any other marxist redistribution of wealth you libs can dream up to steal from others.

Ryan has had about a year to debate what he doesn't want to debate.!

lakerman2 - Especially screaming by all these dolts who voted for Ryan's budget

They are already on record - You know the book "The Scarlet Letter"?

How about the "PR" letter on their foreheads

Sorry little boys and girls you can run but you can't hide

Laker, see a lot of Dems getting Hussein to come to their states to help their campaign?

Not off topic...just another example of pompus you have NO right to know anything about us...just shut up and vote for us.

Love the term she used. It would only provide ammunition to attack us.

If you did nothing wrong, how is there ammunition????

You are being totally unfair. Ann is way better than Romney himself. Just because they keep money mostly in off shore accounts that cannot be seized by the US, that doesn't mean they are cheating, does it? Probably not. Maybe not.

MS.....great post.

She was simply awful, just like their whole campaign. Releasing more returns will only give 'them' more ammunition, says the Lady Ann, wonder what that 'ammunition' might be????

I don't understand how someone who has been planning to run for President for 10 yrs could be so unprepared and inept. Yesiree we have a great pair of liars here, they are so sure they can buy their way, they appear astounded anyone would dare question them. It is going to be a long 84 days for them.

Willard has been used to dealing with underlings and hangers on so he is used to not giving reasons or even telling the truth. He just wants to get his way. He is probably baffled that all us "little people" demand to see what he is hiding.

As Rock Center Correspondent Natalie Morales found in her exclusive interview with the wife of presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, scheduled to air Thursday, August 16, 2012 at 10pm/9c on NBC's Rock Center ...

When pressed by Morales, Mrs. Romney stood her ground. "We have been very transparent to what's legally required of us,” she said. “There's going to be no more tax releases given."

as if to say...

You People are so humorous, you think we actually care about your petty concerns. --Ann Romney?

or

You People don't appreciate just how hard it is to properly deduct $77,000 for a blacktie dressage prom horse from your tax returns. --Ann Romney?

or

You People will just have to wait until the rest of the documentation about Bain Capital is made available through the Mitt Romney Presidential Library in 2025. --Ann Romney?

Saw part of the interview. Indeed it showed true colors!

TalkingPoints, those of us who actually love America and the Constitution want nothing to do with your Fascist Obama and his totalitarian govt.

We are ready for the revolution and to stop the totalitarian madness that has destroyed our country.

TP, one thing you don't want to do is talk about ANYONE sucking at the government teats. Does Barack Hussein Obama come to mind?

I'm beginning to think Larry missed his meds to day.

Larry Robinson,

It's good to see that you've finally embraced the concept that capitalism, when it corrupts, corrupts to the extreme right, or to fascism, rather than to the socailism that you continued to claim for months on end. So I finally got through to you!

It just goes to show that we Progressives have been right all along....that ANY child can be taught.

Oh hjack: you are just upset that Obana got bin laden with NO loss of American life when w couldn't do it after 10 years, $TRILLIONS and the murder of thousands of American service people - murder because he and Cheney lied us into two wars that were not necessary and did no good. Bush/Cheney are war criminals and profiteers who should be in prison.

msnbcisnuts

no what has happened was a coup that overthrew the Constitution which we have not followed for the past 80 years.

Larry........saw you in the movie "One Flew over the Cuckoo Nest" Awesome buddy!

still sucking on that marxist kool aid?

The GOP overthrew the Constitution with Reaganomics !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nonpatriotic American

more marxist nonsense

Reagan produced the largest GDP growth in our history

Reagan produced a 70% increase in Tax Revenues

Reagan produced the largest movement of African Americans into the middle class

Reagan's policies are responsible for the dot com paradigm in the 90's. Without his tax cuts, the dot com funding would have been virtually impossible.

Reagan accomplished the number one role of the Federal govt which is self defense in fall of the Soviet Union.

Unlike Obama who despises the Constitution, Ronald Reagan treated it with the respect and loyalty it deserves.

I well remember the mortgage interest rates well above 15% under Reagan. Dead housing market. The prime rate hit 20% briefly. High unemployment. Bad recession.

If Seniors actually read his plan, they are not worried. If they have children/grandchildren They will be angery, because nothing has been done to keep SS going for more then anther 20 years. When it goes broke, the Current senions will not be upset, their childen and grandchildren will surely be. The Seniors and those over 55 are not affected, it is the ones under 55 that will be paing into the sham.

Ryan is turning Medicare into a voucher program for those 55 and younger in the budget passed by the House of Representatives this year.

Seniors just love changes like that. LOL

He Stands for the 1%, and that is that. If the 1% wants to do something for America, give back the billions and billions the government took from the Social Security funds....

Larry Your a wack job...Oh! yes your a frigin Teawacker. Screw ball idiot

Larry is completly went off the deep end! Ryan would be a disaster for the middle class and all seniors!

Larry, one of those rare, true, proverbial greedy geazers, eh? Sucking the tit of the younger generations, now they can die.

Looks like Larry is on steroids for the Mega Rich 1%, could he be one of Willard's sons ??????????????????

sure PAM- romney became my dad when he was 2 years old.

Larry has ome point, Obama took $714,000,000,000.00 dollars out of Medicare, and not one liberial said anything. At it current rate of decline, there will be No Medicare for anyone younger then 45. so as the Liberials want to just put the blinders on and let it go the way of the Dinosaurs. The only one talking about it is Ryan, It makes not differance if the money is paid out in a program or given out as a voucher. I personally like the voucher, as it allows me to choose the company and the coverage, Instead of a one size fits all program that I have no say in, or control of. I thought Liberials loved "Choice" they do for women, but I guess it is only for women on that one topic, for everything else it is "No Choice Allowd". The How to Pay for Medicare and Social Security needs to be talked about and soon. Before they go under and before even that it will be too late. Social Security will soon be a one payee to one payee program. With the average payout of $1,300.00 a month that means the payer will have to payout more then that just to cover expenses. I do not know of anyone that want to pay for my $1,300.00 a month out of thier paycheck. Who will pay for their's? SS need to be more of a choice to let the person choose if they want a govenrment check or let them control an 401K type account. Where the person is in charge of their own account, not the government using it and not paying it back. Of course there is that word again "Choice". The Govenment should not be in our retirement accounts. So folks, time is running out and it is better to start talking about this sooner then later, or it will be much worse. My personal feelings are if Obama is reelected nothing will be done, I will fall back on my personal 401K, savings and personal incomes I have saved and skrimped over time. I do feel sorry for those that are not prepaired for there retirements, and will have to forgo them, to put food and a roof over thier heads.