Adjusted for timing shifts, Medicare spending rose by $7 billion (or 5 percent).Of course this is reason to be outraged at all that government spending coming out of our pockets, right? Right? Thankfully those fiscally responsible Republicans have come up with the great idea of privatizing Medicare.
Rep. Paul Ryan self-destructively wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security:While I understand that pointing out a fact like that is called "attacking" their favoritest Republicans evah - and their "ideas" - by some defenders of the magic free market faerie dust. And as a moderate liberal I have grown used to the reality of their victim card being pulled out every time they are so wrong it is almost embarrassing to enjoin them in debate... But for now, let us look at how Medicare compares to St. Ronny's vaunted "free market", the free market that Rep. Ryan wants you to turn to solve all of our problems:
He's shilling for Wall Street yet again as he usually does. He wants to privatize medicare and social security although he uses words like "vouchers" to mask what he's saying.
The AFL-CIO calls out Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has requested a rate hike of up to 30 percent in Connecticut, for example, while spending more than $9.5 million on lobbying activities. Similarly, UnitedHealthcare recently proposed a premium increase for its Medicare supplemental insurance while spending more than $2.6 million on lobbying activities in the first half of 2009 alone.Golly... You mean under the Republican healthcare plan people could get off of Medicare's outrageous 5% increases in costs and have the privilege of joining the Free Market's 30% increases? And double their pleasure by giving Corporate Welfare "vouchers" to the very people that cause 99% of the problems in American healthcare?
The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase incrementally from 65 (for people born before 1956), as it is under current law, to 69 years and 6 months for people born in 2022 and later. Starting in 2021, new enrollees would no longer receive coverage through the current program but, instead, would be given a voucher with which to purchase private health insurance.Vouchers for that good old free market 30% increase per year in rates healthcare. And that doesn't even include the increase in Co-Pays... Just the rate.
It is all very nice to claim the government will save money in your Republican plan... But the reality is that it will save taxpayers a few measly pennies in taxes and cost them BIG DOLLARS in the free market to replace their plan. And the reality is that a lot of the government programs that faux-conservatives rant and rail about in the name of fiscal responsibility are pretty darn good government programs and they already are the real answers to being fiscally responsible.
But they are not the Corporate Welfare you are advocating for.
Let's put these to the voters and see how much they love your ideas, OK? While I come up with my sides' slogans for our bumper stickers... Here is the one for the GOP:
Yep! I even gave you a head start in your campaign.
Of course, those of you that do support this Corporate Welfare as your cause célèbre du jour for the GOP, those of you that are the fringiest Republicans and the Teabagrrrrs in the minority of the minority GOP party, can you please do us all a favor?
Get your own Connecticut GOP candidates on the record concerning where they stand on this. Are they with you or against you? "Vouchers" for your insanity or not?
Because when you do and no matter what they answer, we win.
Geesh!
ReplyDeleteWould a little less venom be a lot to ask?
I'm not convinced there's a "crisis" in the first place.
How about addressing more serious problems first?
Getting those damned law-abiding drivers the heck off the roads once and for all should be a much higher priority than this constant worrying about various incarnations of gov't heath-care.
When zipping up to Boston at 85+ ceases to be a problem, maybe then we can worry about these other insignificant little problems.
I understand that Republicans (and the conservadems) want to keep the expensive and profitable healthcare system in place, the system that is breaking the backs of people, businesses and the entire economy.
ReplyDeleteBut the reality is that this is the Republican budget proposal from their top budget guy.
Do you support eliminating Medicare, as this Republican proposal would do, or not? People want to know.
As for the venom part? It is not my fault you want to play a weak victim card in the face of having what Republicans propose being exposed:
Playing The Victim
"One of the amusing things about the emerging debate over Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP "shadow budget" is that there's really no dispute about what Ryan's budget proposes to do. The debate is over whether what it proposes is desirable (and, not for nothing, over whether the assumptions it rests on are valid). But I guess pointing out that Ryan's budget privatizes Social Security and eliminates Medicare is just a political attack -- even if everyone on both sides agrees that's what it will do."
If Republicans didn't want to talk healthcare they should not have made this, along with killing Social Security, a centerpiece of their budget proposal.
Your side brings it up and then complains that we want to discuss it.
Both the policy and your reaction to it is pretty sad statement on Republican politics and policies.
"I don't want to defend my side's ideas! And you can't make me!! No, no, NO!!!" < stomp stomp stomp >
I'll give you credit for this much, ACR: At least you didn't try to lie to me like Don did...
And I'll give the GOP credit for this, as well since unlike last year, this year they put real numbers in their budget proposal.
>>Republicans (and the conservadems) want to keep the expensive and profitable healthcare system in place
ReplyDeleteNot really - but simply socializing the current fiasco would be no improvement and might well result in health-care rationing which is common in both the UK and Canada.
Let's start by hacking off the fat and ridding ourselves forever of some of the reasons our medical expenses are too high in the first place.
What does the FDA do that's worthwhile?
Nothing that couldn't be done via a series of trade supported groups not unlike UL.
American medicine prices are high because pharmaceutical companies assign the substantially higher cost of approval to that portion of a drugs sales that occur where those expenses took place - which is here!
The FDA's series of hoops slows approval of drugs already in wide distribution globally, but denied to our citizens which often results in unnecessary death.
Thus - the FDA costs too much to run and they cost too many lives - shut them down completely and strike all laws and regulations referencing that dept. off the books.
Allow interstate health insurance competition.
Why is that illegal now?
Get rid of absurd mandated coverages (such as in some states, hair transplants).
Put a cap on malpractice or (better yet) do what other countries do and should the subject of a suit be found innocent, let those that initiated the suit be responsible for both legal bills.
Unfounded so called "fishing expedition" lawsuits would stop on the spot.
What we could do to protect our citizens is to mandate or supply a catastrophic insurance of some sort, kicking in only after a 5K deductible but protecting homes etc.
"Not really - but simply socializing the current fiasco would be no improvement and might well result in health-care rationing which is common in both the UK and Canada."
ReplyDeleteWe get rationed to death and die younger under our dismal death by spreadsheet for-profit system - in the American private insurance industry rationing = more profits and more bonuses - here than they do in their single payer systems and "socialised" systems where they ration according to what doctors deem as medically beneficial to all patients.
"What does the FDA do that's worthwhile?"
Under the anti-science leadership of the GOP? Nothing. Under leadership that believes in the reality of science the FDA functions as it is supposed to and saves us from needless deaths.
And like we really need the Banking-like GOP deregulation debacle to spill over into our healthcare.
"American medicine prices are high because pharmaceutical companies assign the substantially higher cost of approval to that portion of a drugs sales that occur where those expenses took place - which is here!"
"Socialist" Europe, where drugs are cheaper, still leads in the development of Pharmaceuticals:
"Europe leads global drug discovery: Study
Published: 31 August 2009
New data shows that Europe is ahead of the United States in pharmaceutical research productivity, contrary to conventional wisdom, argues Professor Donald W. Light in an article published recently in the journal Health Affairs.
snip
Donald Light, a visiting professor at Stanford University, claims a "re-analysis of data" from of new drugs released between 1982 and 2003 "contradicts the claim that US drug firms overtook European firms in pharmaceutical innovation".
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/europe-leads-global-drug-discovery-study/article-184974"
The US leads in repackaging and marketing useless changes to drugs already out there.
How innovative of capitalism.
"Allow interstate health insurance competition. Why is that illegal now?"
Why? All it will do is allow states that allow crappy insurance with near zero value to consumers to be sold in states that disallow that kind of fleecing of it's citizens.
And if the real problems are solved, the denial of claims, the denial of coverage, the ever declining services covered coupled with extreme rise of private rates and their co-pays... There will be no such thing as cheaper private insurance across state lines.
IOW: You propose a solution that will not exist if they fix the real problems.
"Put a cap on malpractice or (better yet) do what other countries do and should the subject of a suit be found innocent,"
Under a single payer system or a socialist system capping lawsuits makes sense. But under a private system lawsuits are the only mechanism we have to keep the corrupt corporations in line. And it would save us so little money that it is not worth exploring until the legitimate and costly issues are resolved.
Your answers of more privatization of good government programs, deregulation of failed private insurance and elimination of legitimate checks to keep the insurance corporations in line is classic GOP model of failure waiting to happen.
Thanks but no thanks.